Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016  with  funding  from 
Getty  Research  Institute 


https://archive.org/details/tarsosunderalexaOOnewe 


TARSOS  UNDER  ALEXANDER 

BY 

EDWARD  T.  NEWELL 


PRICE,  TWO  AND  A HALF  HOLLARS 


THE  AMERICAN  NUMISMATIC  SOCIETY 
BROADWAY  AT  156th  STREET 
NEW  YORK 
1919 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  TEN  COPIES 
REPRINTED  FROM 

THE  AMERICAN  JOURNAL  OF  NUMISMATICS 
VOLUME  LII 


THE  J.  PAUL  GETTY  MUSEUM  LIBRARY 


TARSOS  UNDER  ALEXANDER 

By  E.  T.  NEWELL 


In  the  early  spring  of  333  B.  C.  Alexander  the  Great  and  his  Mace- 
donians looked  down  from  the  passes  of  the  Taurus  upon  the  broad  and 
exceptionally  fertile1  plain  of  Cilicia.  Tarsos  the  capital  and  principal 
city  of  the  fourth  Satrapy  of  the  Persian  Empire  lay  but  a few  days 
march  away.  As  in  a similar  case,  sixty-eight  years  before,  when 
another  Greek  army,  made  ever  famous  by  the  stirring  narrative  of 
Xenophon,  stood  upon  this  spot  the  Persian  ruler  of  Cilicia  dared  not 
oppose  them.  Again  the  exultant  Greeks,  now  under  their  hero-king 
Alexander,  marched  down  into  the  luxuriant  plain  and,  encountering 
no  opposition,  entered  the  gates  of  Tarsos.  In  deference  to  this  rich 
and  populous  province,  its  strategical  situation  between  East  and  West, 
and  the  numerous  Greek  settlements  that  dotted  the  coast,  Alexander 
spent  several  months  within  its  borders.  He  used  this  opportunity  to 
pacify  some  of  the  surrounding  mountain  tribes  who  were  threatening 
the  security  of  the  district  as  well  as  the  great  land  route  which  tra- 
versed it.  This  highway  formed  his  principal  line  of  communications 
with  the  west,  for  the  Persian  fleet  had  not  yet  been  definitely  over- 
come. Visiting  the  important  seaport  of  Soloi  he  imposed  a fine  of  two 
hundred  talents  upon  the  inhabitants,  as  lie  had  reason  to  suspect  that 
they  were  more  inclined  to  favor  the  Persian  king  than  the  new  regime. 
He  also  placed  a garrison  in  the  citadel,  but  to  win  over  the  Greek  pop- 
ulation to  his  side  granted  them  a democratic  constitution.  Great  games 
and  races  were  next  celebrated  here.  Thence  Alexander  marched  back 
to  Tarsos  by  way  of  Megarsos  and  Mallos,  also  Greek  cities,  where  sac- 
rifices were  offered  to  Athene  and  Amphilochos.  Towards  the  end  of 
the  summer  Alexander  led  his  army  eastward  to  meet  the  Persian  king 
in  person  who  was  known  to  have  been  collecting  an  army  in  Syria. 
Along  the  highroad  from  Tarsos  to  Issos  and  thence  through  the  famous 
Gates,  which  in  ancient  times  marked  the  boundary  between  Cilicia 
and  Syria,  towards  the  busy  port  of  Myriandros  marched  the  Greek 
army.  Meanwhile  Darius  had  crossed  the  Amanus  mountain  and 
placed  himself  in  the  plain  of  Issos  squarely  in  Alexander’s  rear. 

1 Xenophon,  “ Anabasis,”  I,  ii,  22. 


o 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


Hastily  the  latter  retraced  liis  steps,  met  the  Persians  in  the  plain  of 
Issos,  and  routed  them  completely.  Thus,  at  a single  stroke,  was  set- 
tled the  ownership  of  Cilicia,  Syria  and  Phoenicia.  From  that  day 
onward  the  tide  of  Macedonian  victory  rolled  eastward  and  Cilicia,  un- 
der its  newly  appointed  governor,  Balakros  son  of  Nikanor,  formed  an 
important  and  integral  part  of  the  Macedonian  Empire.  So  important 
indeed  did  the  lirm  consolidation  of  the  province  appear  to  Alexander 
that  at  first  and  contrary  to  his  usual  custom,  he  combined  in  the  per- 
son of  the  one  man  — the  aforementioned  Balakros  — the  civil  office  of 
satrap  and  the  military  office  of  general  commanding  the  provincial 
garrison  .2 

That  this  strategic  and  vitally  important  province  was  well  con- 
solidated and  strongly  garrisoned  we  may  he  certain.  We  know  that 
in  328  B.  C.  Balakros  himself  perished  during  the  course  of  a border 
war  which  he  was  carrying  on  against  certain  mountain  tribes  to  the 
north  and  west  who,  from  their  fastnesses  in  the  Taurus  range,  might 
prove  a menace  to  the  security  of  the  province.  Knowing  from  this 
that  an  active  army  was  actually  maintained  in  Cilicia  we  may  securely 
conjecture  that,  as  under  previous  Persian  satraps  who  had  used  this 
district  as  a convenient  base  for  their  military  operations,  the  mints 
here  located  continued  to  coin  money  under  Alexander.  This  surmise 
is  proved  correct  by  the  existence  of  a large  number  of  this  monarch’s 
coins  whose  style  is  identical  to  the  satrapal  and  military  coins  previ- 
ously issued  here  by  the  Persians.  Li.  Muller  in  his  “ Numismatique 
d’Alexandre  le  Grand,”  page  277  ft.  has  already  made  this  observation 
and  correctly  assigns  a large  number  of  Alexander’s  coins  to  Cilicia. 
He  made  little  headway,  however,  in  dividing  these  issues  among  their 
respective  mints,  as  the  majority  of  his  local  attributions  can  be  dis- 
proved.11 

In  the  fourth  century  B.  C.,  under  Persian  domination,  Tarsos  be- 
came the  leading  mint  for  the  money  struck  by  satrapal  or  military  author- 

- Arrian  II.  12  says  that  Alexander  appointed  Balakros  ‘ satrap.’  It  was  not  until  in  330  B.C. 
that  a certain  Menes  was  sent  from  Babylon  to  act  as  ‘ hyparch  ’ or  general  of  the  troops  stationed 
in  Cilicia,  Syria  and  Phoenicia. 

3 His  nos.  1287  and  1288  should  he  given  to  Salamis  in  Cyprus  and  nos.  1294  to  1297  inclu- 
sive to  Kition  in  Cyprus,  as  shown  by  the  present  writer  in  Nuin.  Chron.,  Vol.  XV,  1915.  It  may 
he  added  that  nos.  1304,  1305,  1317,  1318  should  be  assigned  to  Babylon  (see  Imhoof-Blumer  in 
Num.  Zeitsehr.,  1895);  1306  to  Miletus;  1312,  1319,  1320,  1321  to  Sidon  (see  “The  Dated  Alex- 
ander Coinage  of  Sidon  and  Ake  ” by  the  present  writer).  Furthermore  nos.  1303, 1309-11, 1313- 
15,  1322-29,  1330,  1330  by  their  style  belong  to  mints  outside  ol'  Cilicia.  The  remainder  are 
really  Cilician. 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


o 


ity.  Because  of  this  precedent,  because  of  the  fact  that  Tarsos- was  the 
capital  and  the  natural  seat  of  the  new  authority,  and,  lastly,  because  of 
her  central  position  and  because  she  was  conveniently  situated  near  to 
the  silver  mines  of  the  Taurus  mountains,4  we  have  every  reason  to 
suppose  that  under  Alexander  she  continued  to  issue  money,  but  hence- 
forth with  the  types  of  the  new  ruler.  In  a previous  work  the  writer 
has  already  drawn  attention  to  the  fact  that  a great  many  of  the  mints 
which  had  coined  under  the  last  of  the  Persian  kings  continued  to 
do  so  under  Alexander.  To  mention  but  a few  in  this  portion  of  his 
empire,  there  were  Arados,  Byblos,  Sidon,  Salamis  and  Kition.  Tar- 
sos was  certainly  another. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  Alexandrine  issues  of  Tarsos  it  would  be 
well  to  take  a hasty  survey  of  the  satrapal  coinages  which  were  their 
immediate  predecessors.  First  Tiribazos  between  the  years  38b  and 
381  B.  C.,  and  later  Pharnabazos  and  Datames  in  379-372  B.  C.  struck 
large  quantities  of  coin,  bearing  their  several  names  and  types,  to  defray 
the  expenses  of  the  military  operations  they  were  engaged  in.  In  361 
B.  C.  Mazaios  was  appointed  governor  for  Cilicia.  In  351  B.  C.  came 
the  great  revolt  against  the  Persian  king  of  certain  of  the  princes  of 
Cyprus  and  Phoenicia.  Hidrieos,  satrap  of  Caria,  was  charged  with 
the  reduction  of  the  former,  while  Mazaios  with  Belesys,  satrap  of  Syria, 
undertook  the  suppression  of  the  Phoenician  rebels.  To  meet  the  ex- 
penses of  these  operations  Mazaios  caused  to  be  struck  in  his  name  at 
Tarsos  large  numbers  of  Persian  silver  staters  having  on  the  obverse 
the  seated  figure  of  Baal-Tars,  and  on  the  reverse  a lion  attacking  a 
stag  (Plate  I,  nos.  1,  2,  3).  The  next  series  is  even  more  distinctive  of 
Tarsos.  While  the  obverse  remains  the  same  except  that  the  head  of 
Baal-Tars  is  facing,  the  reverse  gives  a spirited  representation  of  a lion 

4 That  there  were  comparatively  rich  silver  mines  in  the  Taurus  range  we  may  infer  from 
the  heavy  coinage  in  this  metal  issued  by  the  satraps  and  autonomous  cities,  from  the  fact  that 
the  principal  portion  of  Cilicia’s  tribute  to  the  king  of  Persia  was  annually  live  hundred  talents  of 
silver  (Her.  Ill,  90),  and  from  the  traces  of  ancient  silver  mines  found  there  to-day.  In  speaking 
of  Bulghar-Maden,  situated  just  northwest  of  the  Cilician  Gates  in  the  Taurus  Mountains,  Mr. 
Garstang  says  The  silver  mines  to  which  the  place  owes  its  name  and  probably  its  being,  seem 
to  have  been  considerably  worked  in  ancient  times.”  (Garstang,  “ Land  of  the  llittites,”  page 
43).  W.  B.  Barker,  in  his  “Lares  and  Penates,  or  Cilicia  and  its  Governors,”  page  125,  says: 
“ Xear  Kulak  Bughaz  (the  Cilician  passes)  there  are  lead  mines  ....  It  has  lately  been  discov- 
ered by  an  Italian  mineralogist,  M.  Boriani,  that  together  with  this  lead  there  is  a good  deal  of 
silver  ....  Towards  Sis  (ancient  Pendenissus)  there  are  also  mines  of  great  value  . . . .”  To  this 
the  following  note  has  been  added  by  W.  F.  Ainsworth,  F.  11.  G.  8..  F.  R.  8.:  “At  the  time 
that  the  Euphrates  Expedition  was  at  Suwaidiyah,  an  Englishman  arrived,  who  had  been  invited 
to  the  country  by  Ibrahim  Tasha  to  work  the  mines  of  argentiferous  galena,  near  Sis.” 


4 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


attacking  a bull  (Plate  I,  4)  — the  characteristic  emblem  of  the  city  of 
Tarsos  and  found  on  her  coins  as  late  as  the  reign  of  Gordian  III.  At 
some  date  after  351  B.  C.  Mazaios  also  became  satrap  of  Syria,  though 
still  retaining  his  former  dignity  in  Cilicia.  Under  these  circumstances 
he  caused  to  be  struck  at  Tarsos  the  well  known  staters  with  the  lion 
and  bull  emblem  depicted  over  a double  row  of  towered  and  battle- 
mented  walls,  and  with  the  long  and  interesting  inscription  by  u 'HTE 
■pm  snnjnay  “ Mazaios  who  is  over  Abernahra  and  Cilicia”  (Plate  I,  5) . 
Abernahra  is  the  Aramaic  name  for  the  trans-Euphratine  district  now 
known  as  northern  Syria.  Such  are  the  satrapal  issues  of  Cilicia  from 
the  Tarsiote  mint  which  may  be  looked  upon  as  the  direct  progenitors 
of  the  new  coinages  issued  here,  from  the  Summer  of  333  B.  C.  on,  in 
the  name  of  Alexander  the  Great. 


SERIES  I,  333  to  circa  327  B.  C. 
Silver  issues  with  name  : AAEIANAPOY. 


TETRADRACHM. 

Head  of  youthful  Herakles  to  r.,  cov- 
ered with  lion’s  skin.  Circle  of  dots. 


BRONZE. 

Similar  to  preceding. 


AAEIANAPOY  on  r.  Zeus,  naked  to 
waist,  legs  parallel  and  feet  resting  on 
stool,  seated  to  1.  He  holds  eagle  in  out- 
stretched r.  and  sceptre,  adorned  with  lotos 
bud,  in  1.  Circle  of  dots. 

AAEIANAPOY  between  club  and  bow 
in  quiver.  Circle  of  dots. 


FIRST  GROUP. 

“ Officina  " A. 


\ 


(Muller  no.  1293a)  Beneath  throne  : Pellet. 


Obverse  die. 

Reverse  die. 

I . . 

. . / E. 

T.  N..  Plate  I,  6 and  7. 

II  . . 

. . / 

“ (two  specimens). 

n) 

“ Plate  I,  8 and  9. 

Ill  . . 

o 

“ Plate  I,  10  and  1 

. . If 

“ Rev.  Plate  I,  13. 

IV  . . 

. . b 

“ ^Obv.  Plate  I,  12. 

V . . 

. . O 

“ Plate  I,  14  and  1 

“Officina”  B. 

2 ( ).  No  mint  mark. 

I . . . . 6 E.T.  N.,  Plate  I,  16. 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


u 


V 

vr 

VII 


7 E.  T.  N.,  (two  specimens)  Plate  I,  17. 
iS  “ (two  specimens)  Plate  I,  18. 

0 “ Rev.  Plate  I,  19;  E.  T.  N.5 

9 Amer.  Numis.  Soc.,  Obv.  Plate  I,  19. 
10  Amer.  Numis.  Soc. 


SECOND  GROUP. 

“ Officina  ” A. 


3 (Muller  no.  1291) 

III6  . . . 


IV8 

VIII 


IX 


X 


Beneath  throne 

11 

E.  T.  N 

12 

44 

13 

44 

n 

44 

15 

“ 

16 

44 

17 

44 

18 

44 

18 

u 

10 

“ 

20 

u 

21 

44 

6)J) 

23 9 

44 

20 

u 

23 9 

44 

24 

Paris 

25 

E.  T.  N 

26 

“ 

>'9 

44 

28 

44 

20 

44 

3,0 

44 

31 

44 

3,0 

“ 

3,2 

. > r / 

44 

A 

Plate  I,  20. 

E.  T.  N.' 

Plate  I,  21. 

(two  specimens) 

Plate  II,  1. 

(two  specimens), 
(no.  984). 

Plate  II,  2. 

(two  specimens) 

Plate  II,  3. 


The  obverse  die  used  for  this  coin  is  now  in  a very  bad  state,  the  reverse  die  is  also  dam 
aged  as  seen  the  following  coin  (VJf-9). 

6 Die  1 1 1 henceforth  shows  evident  traces  of  wear. 

7 On  this  coin  die  III  shows  new  break  over  eve. 

3 Die  IV  henceforth  shows  traces  of  wear. 

9 On  these  dies  A is  engraved  over  B. 


6 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


XI 

34 

E.  T.  N.,  Plate  II,  4. 

31w 

44 

35 

“ 

30 

44 

37 

“ another  in  commerce. 

38 

“ (two  specimens). 

S310 

44 

39- 

“ Plate  II,  5. 

40 

In  the  trade. 

“ Officina  ” B. 

4 (Mii  Her 

no.  1289). 

Beneath  throne  : B 

VII" 

4J 

E.  T.  N. 

42 

“ (overstruck)  Plate  II,  6. 

44 

44 

44 

IX 

45 

“ (overstruck).  Plate  II,  7. 

XII 

45 

Egger  Sale,  May,  1912,  no.  667. 

40 

E.  T.  N. 

47 

“ (two  specimens). 

48 

44 

49 

“ Plate  II,  8. 

XIII 

50 

“ 

51 

“ Plate  II,  9. 

52 

“ 

oo 

44 

54 

44 

XIV 

49 

t )t ) 

“ (two  specimens).  Plate  II,  10. 

56 

“ (two  specimens). 

XV 

45 

“ 

47 

“ 

48 

“ another  in  the  trade. 

49 

44 

51) 

44 

50 

44 

5<S 

“ Plate  II,  11.  Amer.  Num.  Soc. 

5 9 12 

“ 

GO 

4 4 

10  The  coins  have  been 

placed 

according  to  the  progressive  wear  and  appearanc 

fractures  in  the 

obverse  die  ( XI ). 

11  Die  VI J 

now  shows  distinct 

signs  of  wear. 

1-2  Obverse 

die  here  show 

rs  least  signs  of  wear. 

lie  W 


Taksos  Under  Alexander 


XV  . 

. . . 61 

E.  T.  N.,  (two  specimens). 

. . . 62n 

. . . 63™ 

“ 

XVI.  . 

. . ' . 61 
(i  l 

Plate  II,  12. 

. . . o o 

...  64 

“ 

. . . 66 

XVII  . 

. . . 66 
6 / 

t 

“ Plate  II,  13. 

XVIII  . 

. . . 67 

“ (two  specimens). 

. . . 6S 

. . . 69 

U 

XIX  . 

....  70 

“ 

. . . 71 

“ Plate  II,  1 5. 

. . . 72 

k > 

XX  . 

. . . 6S 

L.  V.  Case. 

73 

E.  T.  X. 

. . . 74 

Egger  Sale,  May,  1912,  no. 

THIRD  GROUP. 

“ Officina  ” A. 

5 (Num.  Zeitschr.,  vol.  I,  1869,  p.  38,  no.  78). 

Infield:  Ornamented  Trident.  Beneath  throne  : A 
XI14  . . . . 76  Berlin. 

....  76  R.  Storrs  ; E.  T.  N. 

77  London,  Plate  II,  17  : E.  T.  N. 

6 (Muller,  no.  1293).  Beneath  throne:  A 


XXI 

....  78 

(Trident  erased),  E.  T.  X.  (two  specimens) 

Plate  III,  1. 

....  79 

E.  T.  X. 

XXII 

. . . . 80 

U 

8 1 

“ Plate  III,  2 ; L.  V.  Case. 

. . . . 82 

“ Oxford  (Ashmolean). 

. . . . 83 

U 

XXIII 

83 

“ Plate  III,  3. 

XXIV 

....  84 

“ Plate  III,  4. 

( — )• 

Beneath  throne  : 

A Between  throne  and  sceptre  : Pellet. 

XXII 

. . . . 86 

E.  T.  X.,  Plate  III,  5. 

ia  On  this 

die  B is  engraved  over  A- 

14  Die  XI  now  shows  evident  signs  of  wear. 


Tarsos  Unher  Alexander 


3 


9 


10 


(Muller,  no.  1292).  Beneath  throne 


XXIV 

. HO 

S7 

E.  T.  N.  (two  specimens). 

U 

. ss 

Plate  III,  G. 

. 89 

- 

XXV 

. 90 

Plate  III,  7. 

. 91 

“ 

. 92 

i 4 

. 93 

Amer.  Num.  Soc. 

( )• 

Beneath 

throne 

A Pellet  between  throne  and  sceptre. 

XXVI 

. 94 

E.  T.  N. 

. 93 

U 

. 90 

44 

. 97 

“ 

. 98 

“ 

. 99 

“ ( two  specimens). 

. 100 

“ (two  specimens),  Plate  III,  8. 

. 101 

“ Officina  ” B. 

( — )• 

Beneath  throne  : 

B 

XVI 

. 102 

E.  T.  N.,  Plate  III,  9 (two  specimens)  ; 
(Ashmolean ). 

XVIII 

. 103 

44 

. 10j 

44 

. 103 

“ Plate  III,  10. 

. 106 

44 

XIX 

. 106 

Egger  Sale,  May,  1912,  no.  667. 

. 107 

E.  T.  N.,  Plate  III,  11  : F.  M.  Endicott 
in  the  trade. 

. 108 

44 

. 109 

“ 

XX 

. 108 

Plate  III,  12. 

. no 

44 

. in 

4 i 

. 112 

“ (two  specimens). 

XXVII 

. 109 

“ 

. 1 12 

» 

. 113 

“ 

. 114 

“ Plate  III,  13. 

. 113 

44 

Oxford 


another 


U ( )• 


BRONZE  UNIT. 

E.  T.  N. 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


9 


DIAGRAM 
First  Series. 


“ Officina  ” A 

“Officina”  B 

jv  , (Beneath  throne) 

two 

group.  ' % g * 111  coni 

•B  8 

(Beneath  throne) 
;;A  No  mint  mark 

G 

0»  o 

Second 

group. 

Is 

c A • one 

•5  M in  com 

c 

O)  o 

§8 

die  o 

mon  £ D 

o 

'S  8 

Third 

group. 

gf 

= Trident,  A 
A 
A. 
A 
A. 

four 
in  com 

DO* 

The  relations  existing  between  obverse  and  reverse  dies  of  this 
series  have  been  minutely  indicated  in  the  preceding  catalogue  because 
only  thus  are  we  enabled  to  draw  certain  interesting  and  important  con- 
clusions. In  the  first  place,  we  are  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
ten  varieties  of  tetradrachms  here  treated  are  not  consecutive  issues. 
Rather  must  they  be  divided  into  two  groups,  which,  for  convenience 
sake  and  following  a custom  known  to  have  existed  in  Roman  times, 
may  be  designated  as  the  issues  of  two  officinae,  A and  B,  of  a 
single  mint.  These  two  groups  are  strictly  contemporaries  of  each 
other  as  proved  by  the  use  in  common  of  certain  obverse  dies,  and  by  a 
generally  similar  progression  of  style  and  technique  displayed  by  their 
respective  obverses  and  reverses.  With  the  exception  of  the  first  group 
of  each  officina,  the  coins  of  ‘ A 1 are  all  marked  with  an  A,  the  coins 
of  1 B ' with  a B.’5  In  addition,  pellets  singly  or  in  groups  and  placed 
in  various  positions  on  the  reverse  die,  serve  as  minor  marks  of  control. 
The  preceding  diagram  will  show  more  clearly  the  mutual  correspond- 
ence of  the  several  groups  that  go  to  make  up  the  first  issue  of  Alex- 
andrine tetradrachms  from  the  royal  mint  at  Tarsos. 

15  The  writer  does  not  feel  warranted  in  insisting  that  the  mint  was  really  divided  into  two 
distinct  branches  and  that  the  one  was  designated ‘with  an  A.  the  other  with  a B,  and  that  further- 
more their  coin  issues  were  so  marked.  Rather  would  I see  in  the  letters  A and  B the  initials  of 
the  chief  magistrates,  each  of  whom  assumed  the  responsibility  for  one  half  of  the  output  of  coin. 
The  two  groups,  the  one  with  A,  the  other  with  B,  are  sufficiently  distinct,  however,  to  make  it 
advisable,  for  purposes  of  study,  to  assume  that  the  coins  were  issued  by  two  more  or  less  inde- 
pendent branches  of  the  one  mint. 


10 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


For  the  first  group  of  officina  A five  obverse  dies  (I,  II,  111,  IV,  V) 
were  cut,  but,  so  far,  only  five  reverse  dies  are  known  to  have  been  used 
with  them.  Similarly  for  the  first  group  of  officina  B four  obverse  dies 
are  known  (I,  V,  VI,  VII)  of  which  the  first  and  second  were  also  used 
in  officina  A.  This  fact,  together  with  the  close  similarity  of  style  and 
technique  displayed  on  the  obverses  and  reverses  of  both  groups,  proves 
their  contemporaneousness  as  well  as  their  origin  in  a single  mint.  It 
is  to  be  noticed  that  the  Zeus  figure  on  these  coins  has  no  locks  of  hair 
on  the  nape  of  his  neck. 

The  second  group  of  officina  A follows  immediately  upon  the  first, 
of  which  it  continues  to  use  two  obverse  dies  (III  and  IV)  now  show- 
ing unmistakable  evidences  of  wear  (compare  on  Plate  I,  obverses  nos. 
10  and  12  with  obverses  of  nos.  20  and  21 ) . In  addition  to  obverse  dies 
III  and  IV,  four  new  ones  (VIII  to  XI)  are  cut  and  put  into  use.  Sim- 
ilarly for  the  second  group  of  officina  B we  find  one  of  the  obverse  dies 
(VII)  of  the  first  group  still  in  use,  but  also  showing  signs  of  wear 
(compare  Plate  1,  no.  19  and  Plate  II,  no.  6).  Nine  new  obverse  dies 
(Xll  to  XX)  are  cut  and  put  into  operation  together  with  an  obverse 
die  (IX)  of  officina  A.  Thus  variety  3 (of  A)  is  contemporary  with  no. 
4 (of  B)  as  shown  by  the  interchange  of  this  die  (IX),  by  the  recutting 
of  an  A over  the  B on  reverse  dies  33  and  27,  the  corresponding  recut- 
ting of  a B over  the  A on  die  6‘2,  and  by  the  close  similarity  in  the  style 
and  appearance  of  the  coins  themselves.  This  can  be  seen  by  compar- 
ing the  following  two  cuts. 


Variety  3 of  oilicina  A.  Fig.  1 Variety  4 of  officina  B. 

Although  it  seems  to  have  been  necessary  to  cut  more  obverse  dies 
for  this  B group  than  for  the  corresponding  A group,  the  number  of 
reverse  dies  used  remains  about  the  same.  Because  of  this  and  because 
the  artistic  and  stylistic  progression  of  the  obverse  and  reverse  dies  is 
identical  we  may  infer  that  the  second  groups  of  A and  B,  appearing 
simultaneously,  endured  the  same  length  of  time  and  were  about  equal 
in  the  size  of  their  respective  coin  issues. 

In  both  officinae  the  second  group  is  followed  by  a third  group  of 
slightly  later  style  but  bound  to  the  former  by  the  continued  use  of 


Tarsus  Under  Alexander 


11 


certain  obverse  dies.  In  A one  obverse  die  (XI)  is  carried  over  to  the 
new  group  ; in  B as  many  as  four  (XVI,  XVIII,  XIX  and  XX)  obverse 
dies  continue  to  be  used.  We  have  above  recorded  the  fact  that  six  more 
obverse  dies  had  been  cut  for  the  second  group  of  B than  for  the  corres- 
ponding group  of  A.  As  the  size  and  duration  of  time  of  the  two  issues 
seem  to  have  remained  the  same,  the  natural  result  was  that  the  wear 
and  tear  on  the  obverse  dies  of  B would  have  been  less  in  the  aggregate, 
and  more  could  have  therefore  been  preserved  for  continued  use  in  the 
third  group  than  was  the  case  for  the  third  group  of  A.  In  fact  the 
only  die  that  survived  (XI)  for  continued  use  in  the  third  group  of  A 
plainly  shows  the  effect  (see  Plate  II,  no.  17)  of  long  and  hard  usage. 
Whereas  the  first  two  groups  of  A exactly  parallel  in  style,  size  of  out- 
put, and  number  of  varieties,  the  first  two  groups  of  B,  the  present  or 
third  group  diverges  from  that  of  B in  every  one  one  of  these  respects. 
Because,  however,  in  both  officinae  certain  obverse  dies  serve  to  defi- 
nitely bind  the  third  and  second  groups  and  because  certain  reverse 
dies  of  the  third  A group  are  absolutely  identical  in  style  with  reverse 
dies  of  the  third  B group  (compare  the  accompanying  cut)  we  possess 


the  proof  that  we  are  still  dealing  with  the  issues  of  a single  mint.  As 
shown  by  their,  for  the  Tarsiote  mint,  unusual  style  there  appeared  at 
this  time  in  offieina  A an  extra  issue  of  tetradrachms  not  duplicated  in 
B.  These  coins  are  of  an  individual  style  resembling  only  in  a gen- 
eral way  that  of  the  regular  issues  of  A and  B,  the  flans  are  usually 
somewhat  smaller,  the  striking  more  careless,  the  work  less  good  artist- 
ically. In  fact,  their  style  differs  so  much  in  details  from  the  normal 
issues  of  officinae  A and  B that  the  writer  was  at  first10  under  the  im- 
pression that  they  must  have  been  struck  at  some  other  mint.  Further- 
more, die  XXII  bears  such  close  resemblance  to  a certain  die  used  at 
the  Phoenician  mint  of  Ake17  that  it  is  difficult  to  believe  they  were  not 
both  cut  by  the  same  hand.  In  spite  of  this  it  is  no  less  than  certain 

10  American  Journal  of  Numismatics,  Vol.  XL VI,  1912,  p.  45. 

17  E.  T.  Newell,  “ The  Dated  Alexander  Coinage  of  Sidon  and  Ake,”  Elate  V,  14. 


1*2 


Tarsos  Lender  Alexander 


that  our  varieties  5,  6,  7,  8 and  9 belong  to  the  same  series  and  mint  as 
varieties  1 and  3.  In  the  first  place  no.  5 (with  symbol  Trident  in  field 
and  A beneath  throne)  is  definitely  bound  with  no.  3 by  the  use  in  com- 
mon ot‘  an  obverse  die  (XI) . The  very  first  reverse  die  (78)'  of  variety 
6 shows  that  the  Trident  symbol  of  no.  5 was  once  engraved  in  its  field, 
but  was  later  erased  leaving,  however,  distinct  traces  (Plate  III,  1). 
Thus,  in  addition  to  the  A which  appears  on  both,  the  traces  of  the  char- 
acteristic Trident  symbol  proves  that  we  can  not  separate  no.  6 from  no. 
5.  V arieties  7 and  8 are  bound  by  the  common  use  of  dies  XXII  and  XXIV 
to  no.  6 and  we  therefore  must  admit  that  this  entire  group,  composed 
of  varieties  nos.  3,  5,  6,  7 and  8 form  a single  and  indivisible  unit  and 
so  must  have  been  struck  in  one  and  the  same  mint.  Variety  9 is  but 
a slight  variant  of  no.  8 and  so  certainly  belongs  with  it,  as  the  style 
shows.  In  carefully  considering  the  above  facts  we  are  brought  to  the 
conclusion  that,  at  some  time  not  long  after  the  mint  at  Tarsos  had 
commenced  to  coin  for  Alexander,  the  old  staff  of  die -cutters,  as  taken 
over  from  the  Persian  regime,  was  found  to  be  inadequate  to  handle 
the  great  mass  of  coin  which  had  now  to  be  issued  under  the  changed 
conditions  obtaining  in  the  province  of  Cilicia.  Not  only  was  the  issue 
of  the  Alexander  tetradrachms  larger,  as  a whole,  than  any  one  of  the 
preceding  satrapal  issues,  but,  as  we  shall  soon  see,  other  series’  of  coins 
were  now  being  struck  as  well,  thus  materially  increasing  the  general 
output  of  coin  from  our  mint.  It  is  reasonable  to  suppose,  then,  that 
one  or  more  new  die  cutters  had  to  be  secured  to  assist  in  the  enlarged 
production.  These  new  die  cutters  seem  to  have  been  assigned  only  to 
offieina  A — the  old  ones  continued  to  be  employed  in  officina  B.  One 
of  the  new  engravers  (he  who  cut  obverse  die  XXII  and  reverse  dies 
79  to  85)  seems  to  have  been  imported  from  Ake  in  Phoenicia  where 
he  had  been  working  for  a couple  of  years  after  leaving  Sidon. 

As  brought  out  by  the  present  writer  in  his  monograph  on  “The 
Dated  Alexander  Coinage  of  Sidon  and  Ake,”  p.  53,  this  die  cutter  had 
already  been  transferred,  sometime  in  the  year  332  B.  C.,  from  Sidon 
to  Ake  when  a mint  was  opened  in  the  latter  city  during  Alexander’s 
operations  against  Tyre  and  later  against  Gaza.  From  this  artist’s 
hands  are  obverse  dies  II,  ill,  IV,  V,  VI,  of  Ake  as  well  as  practically 
all  the  reverse  dies  of  varieties  1,  2,  3 and  4 (compare  loc.  cit.  Plate  V, 
nos.  9 to  15)  of  that  mint.  Almost  exactly  similar  in  style  and  tech- 
nique (see  the  following  cut)  are  obverse  die  XXII  and  reverse  dies 
79  to  85  of  the  Tarsos  mint. 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


13 


dki 


r 


New  artist  at  Tarsos. 


The  same  artist  at  Ake. 


Iii  the  above  mentioned  monograph  the  writer  (on  pages  53  and 
54)  indicated  that  the  four  Ake  varieties  which  contain  the  dies  cut  by 
this  particular  workman  cover  only  the  years  332  to  330  B.  C.,  after 
this  date  his  work  is  no  longer  seen  at  Ake.  Therefore  it  is  to  be  in- 
ferred that  lie  left  Ake  sometime  between  330  and  329  B.  C.  Now  it 
is  about  this  very  time  that  his  style  suddenly  appears  in  the  Tarsos 
mint.  For  in  officina  A we  possess  nine  (I-V,  VIII-NI)  obverse  dies 
to  cover  the  years  333  to  330/29  before  his  handiwork  appears.  Simi- 
larly, for  Sidon  we  possess  eleven  obverse  tetradrachm  dies  to  cover 
the  period  from  late  in  333  to  October  327  B.  C ; for  Ake  we  possess 
six  obverse  tetradrachm  dies  to  cover  the  period  332  to  329  B.  C.,  or, 
in  each  case,  about  two  obverse  dies  per  year.  Basing  our  estimates  on 
this  evidence,  die  XI  of  officina  A of  Tarsos  would  bring  us  to  329-328 
B.  C.,  at  the  latest,  for  the  first  appearance  in  this  mint  of  the  new 
artist.  In  other  words  all  internal  evidence  available  would  seem  to 
tally  with  our  supposition  that  a certain  die  cutter  was  transferred  from 
the  Ake  mint  to  Tarsos  to  assist  in  an  increased  output  of  coin  in  that 
mint,  and  that  this  event  occurred  about  the  year  329  B.  C.  It  would 
not  perhaps  be  too  far  fetched  to  assume  that  this  exceptional  activity 
in  the  Tarsos  mint  was  directly  due  to  the  preparations  for  the  expedi- 
tion undertaken  in  328  B.  C.  by  Balakros,  the  satrap  of  Cilicia,  against 
the  warlike  and  formidable  mountain  tribes  of  the  Isaurians.  It  was 
in  this  campaign  that  Balakros  was  defeated  and  lost  his  life. 

Briefly  then,  in  following  the  issues  of  the  two  branches  or,  to  use 
a Roman  expression,  officinae  of  our  mint  at  Tarsos,  we  have  noticed 
that  they  commenced  operations  respectively  with  three  and  two  ob- 
verse dies  each,  and,  in  addition,  two  used  in  common.  The  style  of 
the  dies,  both  obverse  and  reverse,  cut  for  the  two  officinae  are  identi- 
cal. A second  group  of  coins  now  followed  in  each  officina,  hound 
to  the  previous  ones  and  to  each  other  by  the  use  in  common  of  certain 
obverse  dies,  but  henceforth  differentiated  by  the  letters  A and  B placed 
on  their  respective  reverses.  The  style  has  become  slightly  modified, 


14 


Tar, sos  Under  Alexander 


but  only  in  such  minor  details  as,  for  instance,  the  appearance  of  locks 
of  hair  falling  down  over  the  nape  of  Zeus1  neck.  The  second  group  of 
A must  be  contemporaneous  with  the  second  group  of  B as  two  of  its 
reverse  dies  show  an  A engraved  over  a B,  while,  reciprocally  B uses  an 
obverse  die  of  A.  In  each  officina  the  second  group  then  merges  into 
the  third  group  and  with  the  continued  use  of  certain  old  obverse  dies. 
Now,  however,  the  new  artists  who  have  been  introduced  into  officina 
A so  influenced  the  style  of  its  issues  that  in  many  details  this  style 
differs  radically  from  that  found  on  the  contemporary  issues  of  B.  It  is 
never -the -less  certain  that  the  third  group  of  A ai\d  the  third  group  of 
B are  more  or  less  contemporaneous  because  these  two  groups,  as  we 
have  already  seen,  must  have  both  commenced  about  the  same  time; 
because  a few  of  their  dies  closely  resemble  each  other  in  style  ; and  be- 
cause an  identical  mark  of  control  — a pellet  — is  found  over  the  char- 
acteristic letter  on  all  the  reverse  dies  of  B and  many  of  those  of  A. 

In  approaching  the  question  of  the  percentage  of  obverse  to  reverse- 
dies  as  shown  by  the  coins  of  Series  I,  it  must  be  remembered  that  this 
study  has  had  to  be  based  almost  entirely  upon  such  coins  as  chanced 
to  be  in  collections  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic.  If  casts  could  have- 
been  secured  from  the  principal  public  and  private  collections  of  Europe 
many  more  reverse  dies  would  assuredly  have  been  found.  As  it  is, 
Series  I furnishes  us  with  an  average  of  over  four  reverse  dies  to  every 
obverse  one.18  In  individual  cases,  however,  we  have  up  to  ten  and 
twelve  reverses  for  one  obverse.  For  the  present  we  have,  in  Series  I 
of  the  Tarsiote  mint: 

2 instances  of  12  reverse  dies  used  with  one  obverse  die. 

1 instance  of  11  “ “ “ “ “ “ “ 

1 “ of  8 “ “ “ “ “ “ “ 

4 instances  of  7 “ “ “ “ “ “ “ 

2 “ of  6 “ “ “ “ “ “ “ 

6 “ of  5 “ “ “ “ “ “ “ 

2 “ of  4 “ “ “ “ “ 

2 “ of  3 “ “ “ “ “ “ “ 

6 “ of  2 “ “ “ “ “ “ 

1 instance  of  1 “ ■ “ “ “ “ “ “ 

It  would  not  be  placing  the  figure  too  high  to  consider  the  original 
average  proportion  of  reverse  dies  to  obverse  dies  for  tetradrachms  to 
have  been  not  less  than  eight  to  one,  and  probably  more  than  ten  to 
one.  This  is  shown  by  statistics  we  have  available  in  the  contempo- 
rary mints  of  Sidon  and  Ake.19  For  Sidon  we  have  one  case  where 

To  be  exact,  we  have  115  reverse  dies  used  with  27  obverse  dies. 

10  See  “ Dated  Alexander  Coinage  of  Sidon  and  Ake,”  passim. 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


15 


seven  reverse  dies  were  used  with  one  obverse.  For  Ake  we  have  the 
following  ] troportions : 

1  instance  of  13  reverse  dies  used  with  one  obverse  die. 

1 “ of  12 

1 “ of  1 1 

2 instances  of  10 

2 “ of  0 

3 “ of  8 

3 “ of  7 

and  many  in  addition  with  anywhere  from  one  to  six  to  a single  obverse. 
These  last  low  proportions,  as  suggested  in  the  above  mentioned  mono- 
graph, pages  67  and  68,  are  probably  due  more  to  the  chances  of  time 
than  to  the  small  number  of  reverse  dies  actually  cut  in  proportion  to 
obverse  dies. 

Throughout  Series  1 the  dies  were  not  fixed.  In  this  our  Alexan- 
der tetradrachms  but  follow  the  preceding  satrapal  issues.  It  is  inter- 
esting to  note  in  how  many  instances20  the  customs  and  peculiarities  of 
a local  coinage  will  reappear  on  the  succeeding  issues  of  Alexander  for 
the  same  district.  This  shows  clearly  how  the  personnel,  appliances 
and  traditions  of  a mint  were  all  retained  for  the  production  of  the  new 
coin.  The  coinage  of  Tarsos  is  no  exception  to  this  rule  and  the  issues 
bearing  the  name  and  types  of  Alexander  the  Great  are  seen  to  be  the 
direct  successors  of  the  local  coins  of  the  Persian  satraps.  The  accom- 
panying cut  (fig.  4)  places  side  by  side  a Mazaios  stater  and  a tetra- 
drachm  of  Alexander’s  first  issue  at  Tarsos.  We  may  now  note  the 


Mazaios  Stater.  Alexander  Tetradrachm. 

Fig.  4 

identical  form  of  the  throne,  the  sceptre,  the  foot-stool,  and  other  de- 
tails on  both.  The  drapery  is  rendered  in  a similar  manner,  the  Ara- 
maic inscription  of  one  and  the  Greek  inscription  of  the  other  are 
similarly  curved,  following  the  dotted  border  of  each.  There  can 
indeed  be  little  doubt  that  the  two  series  of  coins  were  the  common 
product  of  a single  mint. 

2 0 Among  others,  the  Alexander  issues  of  Salamis,  and  Kition  in  Cyprus,  Jjyhlos,  Sidon  and 
Ake  in  Phoenicia. 


tt  U 


16 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


ISSUE  OF  PERSIC  STATERS,  Circa  327  B.  C. 


Immediately  succeeding  the  series  of  Alexander  tetradrachms  which 
we  have  just  been  studying,  there  was  issued  a special  series  of  Persic 
silver  staters.  These  in  many  ways  are  remarkable  and  stand  out  in 
strong  contrast  to  the  Alexandrine  issues.  The  latter,  in  character  and 
circumstance,  were  really  the  direct  descendants  of  the  earlier  issues  of 
Tarsos  which  bear  the  names  of  Persian  satraps,  such  as  Tiribazos, 
Pharnabazos,  Datames  and  Mazaios.  For  the  Alexandrine  issues  were 
a military  as  well  as  an  imperial  undertaking.  They  were  issued  to  pay 
the  troops  stationed  in  Cilicia  for  the  protection  of  the  province  and 
the  securing  of  the  important  and  now  vital  highway  which  traversed 
it.  They  proclaimed  the  name  of  the  new  master  and  so  brought  be- 
fore the  people  the  fact  that  Cilicia  was  now  an  integral  portion  of  his 
empire.  They  were  struck  to  conform  the  circulating  medium  of  this 
province  with  the  currency  of  the  remainder  of  the  empire  and  so  to 
encourage  and  facilitate  a more  widely  spread  commerce  and  exchange. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  new  issue  of  Persic  staters,  while  resembling 
the  earlier  satrapal  issues  in  weight  and,  to  a certain  extent,  in  type, 
was  a purely  municipal  and  local  undertaking.  Unlike  the  contempo- 
rary Alexander  tetradrachms  or  the  earlier  satrapal  staters  no  name  of 
overlord  or  of  military  authority  appears  upon  them.  Instead,  the  four 
letters  T,  M,  I,  which  occur  singly  beneath  the  Baal  throne,  clearly 
indicate  that  it  was  the  municipalities  of  Tarsos,  Mallos,  Soloi  and  Issos, 
the  four  largest  and  most  important  cities  of  Eastern  Cilicia,  that  were 
alone  responsible  for  this  recoinage  of  the  Persic  stater. 


SERIES  I. 


First  group, 


nnSjn  on  1.  Baa, 1-Tars,  himation  over  I. 

arm  and  legs,  seated  to  1.  and  rests  r.  arm 
on  lotos-beaded  sceptre.  In  field  to  1.,  ear 
of  wheat.  Border  of  dots, 
a.  Beneath  throne,  T. 

Paris  (Babelon,  Traite  II2,  no.  713  PI. 


'irca  327  B.  C. 


Fig.  6 

Two  lines  of  wall,  one  above  the  other. 
Above,  lion  to  1.  attacking  bull  to  r.;  above, 
Club.  Border  of  dots. 

cxiii,  10),  fig.  5 ; Newell  Coll. 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


17 


b.  Beneath  throne,  M. 

London  (B.  M.  Catalogue,  no.  66). 

c.  Beneath  throne,  I. 

London  (B.  M.  Catalogue,  no.  65,  PI.  xxxi,  7 ),  fig.  6. 


Second  group  (with  B) 


(Enlarged) 
Fig.  7 


d.  Beneath  throne,  §.  Above  lion  on  reverse,  B. 

Coll.  Six  (see  Babelon,  Traite  II2,  no.  716). 

e.  Beneath  throne  (?),  usually  plain.  Above  lion  on  reverse,  B. 

Paris  (Babelon,  Traite  II2,  no.  712,  PI.  exiii,  9);  Benson  Sale,  Sotheby  1909,  no. 
746,  fig.  7 ; Newell  Coll. 

PERSIC  OBOL. 

Head  of  Athene  to  r.  in  crested  Attic  Shield  of  so-called  Boeotian  shape.  Cir- 
helinet.  Circle  of  dots.  cle  of  dots. 

f.  To  right  of  shield,  B- 

Paris  (Babelon,  Traite  II3,  no.  374,  PI.  c.civ,  38). 

Unlike  the  previous  staters  struck  in  the  name  of  Mazaios  and  the 
first  series  of  tetradrachms  issued  by  Alexander  at  Tarsos,  the  present 
staters  do  not  show  a foot -stool  beneath  the  feet  of  Baal -Tars.  In  this 
peculiarity  they  are  exactly  paralleled  by  the  first  issues  of  the  Alexan- 
der tetradrachms  of  Series  II,  as  the  accompanying  cuts  can  best  show. 


The  absolute  identity  in  style  and  workmanship  between  the  Baal 
figure  of  these  coins  and  the  Zeus  of  the  Alexander  tetradrachms  to  be 


Reverse  of  Persic  Stater. 

Alexander  Tetradrachm  (Enlarged) 
Fig.  8 


Reverse  of 

Alex  an  d e r T e tradrae  h m 


Persic  Stater. 
(Enlarged) 


Fig.  0 


18 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


described  at  the  commencement  of  Series  II  (p.  97)  proves  both  that 
the  dies  were  probably  cut  by  the  same  artists  and  that  the  coins  were 
issued  simultaneously  from  one  and  the  same  mint.  On  the  tetra- 
drachms  the  attitude  of  Zeus  corresponds  to  the  type  as  already  intro- 
duced on  Alexander’s  coinage  shortly  after  his  accession  to  the  Mace- 
donian throne.  Here  the  outstretched  right  hand  holds  the  eagle,  the 
left  rests  upon  the  lotos -tipped  sceptre.  On  the  Persic  staters  the 
figure  of  Baal-Tars,  as  far  as  clothing,  position  of  body  and  legs, 
and  details  of  hair  and  wreath  are  concerned,  is  identical  to  the  tetra- 
drachms,  the  extended  right  hand,  however,  grasps  the  sceptre  while 
the  left  rests  upon  his  hip.  The  structural  details  of  the  throne  on 
both  categories  of  coin  are  also  absolutely  identical.  As  stated  above, 
the  four  letters  T,  M,  § and  l found  on  the  obverse  of  these  staters  can 
only  mean  that  the  coins  were  issued  under  the  auspices  and  at  the 
joint  expense  of  the  four  cities  of  Tarsos,  Mallos,  Soloi  and  Issos.  The 
actual  striking,  however,  took  place  in  the  imperial  mint  at  Tarsos. 
This  is  shown  not  only  by  the  style  and  technique  of  the  coins  them- 
selves, but  also  by  the  club  of  Tarsiote  Herakles  on  the  reverse,  and  by 
the  letter  B which  is  so  characteristic  of  the  Alexander  issues  of  both 
Series  I and  II.  Thus  we  see  that  not  only  were  these  staters  struck 
at  Tarsos  after  the  conquest  of  Cilicia  by  Alexander  but  that  it  was  the 
B ” official  of  that  mint  who  supervised  their  manufacture  for  the 
four  municipalities  of  Tarsos,  Mallos,  Soloi  and  Issos.  This  would 
also  dispose  of  the  various  attempts  to  see  in  the  B the  initial  letter  of 
Baa-t\e'&)<?,21  BeA.e'0-u?,22  or  Ba\a*;/>o?.23  Furthermore,  now  that  we  possess  valid 
reasons  for  assigning  this  series  of  Persic  staters  to  a period  subsequent 
to  Alexander’s  arrival  in  Cilicia,  we  are  in  a position  to  answer  a ques- 
tion raised  by  Six  (Num.  Chron.,  3rd  Series,  vol.  IV,  1384,  page  138), 
who  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  on  these  pieces- the  marks  of  con- 
trol are  in  Greek,  whereas  on  the  earlier  coins  (which  bear  the  name  of 
Mazaios)  they  are  in  Aramaic.  When  the  old  mint  at  Tarsos  became 
a royal  mint  of  Alexander’s  empire  the  responsible  officials,  whose  duty 
it  was  to  sign  the  coinage,  were  now  either  Greeks  themselves  or  were 
henceforth  required  to  employ  Greek  letters  in  their  signatures.  For 
this  was  now  a central  mint  of  the  empire  and  its  coinage  of  Alexan- 
drine types  was  expected  to  circulate  throughout  the  Greek  world. 

21  Babelon,  Traite  II,  p.  404 . 

22  Catalogue  of  the  Greek  Coins  in  the  B.  M.  Lycaonia,  Isauria,  Cilicia,  1900,  introd.  lxxxiv. 
note  1. 

23  Babelon,  Les  Perses  Achemenides,  etc.  Paris,  1893,  p.  xlvi. 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


19 


Emphasis  has  here  been  purposely  laid  on  the  character  of  the  mint  at 
Tarsos  in  order  to  bring  out  the  difference  that  existed  between  it  and 
the  mints  of  such  city-states  as  Arados,  Byblos,  Sidon  and  Ake.  In 
these  the  coinage,  though  conforming  in  weight,  types,  and  denomina- 
tions with  the  remainder  of  the  empire,  still  was  allowed  to  retain 
something  of  its  local  character.  Thus  the  mint  marks  on  their  " Alex - 
exanders  ” are  often  in  native  characters.  On  the  first  issues  of  Arados 
and  Byblos  we  find  X2  and  T respectively  ; on  those  of  Sidon  a with  X 
or  2 and  later  also  T,  n,  *2,  and  ' ; on  those  of  Ake  the  name  of  the  city 
and  dates  are  in  Phoenician  letters.  It  is  also  to  be  observed  that  at 
Ake,  during  the  period  of  the  sieges  of  Tyre  and  Gaza  when  the  city 
served  as  a base  for  the  Greek  army,  the  tetradrachms  bore  Greek  sym- 
bols and  letters,24  but  so  soon  as  Alexander  departed  for  the  East  and 
the  mint  was  presumably  turned  over  to  the  local  authorities,  Phoeni- 
cian letters  appear.  Similarly,  the  first  issue  of  gold  staters  at  Sidon 
was  probably  associated  with  the  use  of  that  city  as  an  important  mili- 
tary base.2’  These  staters  at  first  all  bear  various  symbols  as  mint 
marks,26  but  later  their  place  is  taken  by  Phoenician  alphabetical  dates 
when  the  city,  as  such,  acquired  the  right  to  coin  gold  as  well  as  silver. 
Thus,  by  comparing  them  with  the  earliest  Alexander  issues  of  the 
Phoenician  city-states,  we  can  see  that  the  Tarsiote  issues  are  entirely 
imperial  in  character.  With  the  exception  of  style,  they  bear  no  dis- 
tinctively local  marks.  In  strong  contrast  to  this  are  the  Persic  staters 
described  above.  These,  although  evidently  struck  in  the  same  mint, 
at  the  same  time,  and  guaranteed  by  the  same  high  official  (B)  as  the 
Alexander  tetradrachms,  never-the-less  reveal  their  local  character  by 
their  types,  by  the  absence  of  the  name  of  any  satrap  or  king,  by  the 
presence  of  the  club  of  Herakles  of  Tarsos,  and,  finally,  by  the  four 
initial  letters  T,  M,  § and  I. 

After  having  pointed  out  the  true  date  and  character  of  these 
Persic  staters,  it  will  be  necessary  to  consider  the  reasons  for  the  reap- 
pearance of  a coin  which  one  might  have  supposed  would  have  been 
definitely  done  away  with  on  the  collapse  of  Persian  dominion  west,  of 
the  Euphrates,  and  the  consequent  establishment  of  a new  order  of 

24  “ Dated  Alexander  Coinage  of  Sidon  and  Ake,”  varieties  1-4  of  Ake. 

25  Idem.,  pp.  22,  23  and  26. 

26  Idem.,  Varieties  1-7  of  Sidon.  Between  these  and  the  staters  with  the  alphabetical  dates 
come  several  staters  with  the  symbols  Filleted  Laurel  Branch  or  Galley.  These  symbols  are  of 
purely  local  significance  and,  because  of  the  accompanying  §|,  prove  the  coins  were  issued  under 
local  authority. 


20 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


things.  Tn  the  first  place  it  must  be  remembered  that  customs  and 
prejudices  are  not  thus  lightly  changed  in  the  East.  That  this  truism 
was  recognized  and  respected  by  Alexander  himself  history  clearly 
shows.  The  same  spirit  is  shown  in  his  coinage.  In  many  of  his 
eastern  mints  due  consideration  of  local  conditions  seems  to  have  been 
taken.  In  other  words  his  types  and  the  Attic  standard,  while  forming 
the  bulk  of  the  coinage  and  the  official  medium  of  exchange,  were  not 
absolutely  and  drastically  enforced  to  the  exclusion  of  all  else.  Thus 
for  Cyprus,  while  large  quantities  of  Alexander  staters,  tetradrachms, 
drachms,  and  bronze  pieces  were  coined  in  all  the  island  mints,  still,  at 
the  same  time,  small  denominations  of  Rhodian  weight  and  bearing 
local  types  were  allowed  to  he  issued.'27  In  Arados  and  Byblos  small 
denominations  with  local  types  were  struck  along  with  the  regular 
Alexander  issues.28  At  Hierapolis  in  Syria  were  coined  didrachms  of 
Attic  weight  and  in  the  name  of  Alexander  or  of  the  High  Priest  Abd- 
Hadad,  but  all  bearing  local  types.'"'  Throughout  the  last  quarter  of  the 
Fourth  Century  B.  C.  double  darics  with  the  old  Persian  types  were 
also  issued  at  Babylon,  along  with  the  gold  staters  and  silver  tetradrachms 
of  the  regular  Alexander  type.  These  and  many  other  instances  of  the 
same  sort  give  us  sufficient  reason  not  to  be  surprised  to  find  that  after 
the  conquest  of  Cilicia  by  Alexander  he  should  still  countenance  the 
coining  of  Persic  staters  in  his  mint  at  Tarsos.  In  Cilicia  the  Attic 
standard  was  well  known  and  accepted.  All  the  coins  struck  here, 
however,  and  the  bulk  of  the  circulating  medium  before  the  arrival  of 
Alexander  was  composed  of  Persic  staters  and  sigloi.  Not  only  was  it 
the  Persian  standard  that  had  for  centuries  been  employed  by  the  Cili- 
cian  cities  of  Kelenderis,  Holmi,  Nagidos,  Soloi,  Mallos,  Tarsos,  Issos 
and  by  the  satraps  Tiribazos,  Pharnabazos,  Datames  and  Mazaios,  but 
the  principal  cities  and  districts  with  whom  the  Cilicians  traded  had 
been  accustomed  to  employ  the  same  standard  for  their  issues.  Among 
these  were  the  important  commercial  cities  of  Selge,  Aspendos,  Side, 
and  Arados,  as  well  as  the  Island  of  Cyprus.  The  merchants  and 
traders  of  Cilicia  had  also  important  commercial  connections  with  the 
interior  of  Asia  Minor.  This  is  shown  by  the  use  of  the  Persic  stand- 
ard for  the.  issues  of  Ariarathes  1 king  of  Cappadocia,  and  by  the  great 
find,  made  near  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia  in  1850,  which  was  entirely 

37  Nuin.  Chron.,  4th  Series,  vol.  XV,  1915,  “Some  Cypriote  Alexanders,”  passim. 

38  Jour.  Inter,  de  Num.  et  d’Areh.,  Vol.  Ill,  1900,  p.  150,  and  Vol.  IV,  1901,  pp.  41,  42  ; 
Cat.  of  Greek  Coins  in  the  B.  M.,  “ Phoenicia.” 

39  Num.  Chron.,  New  Series,  vol.  XVIII,  pp.  103-131. 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


*21 


composed  of  Cilician  and  Aspendian  staters.  While  it  was  undoubtedly 
to  the  imperial  interest  for  Alexander  to  have  had  coined  only  his  own 
type  of  money  at  Tarsos,  in  order  to  conform  the  circulating  medium  of 
the  province  with  that  of  the  remainder  of  his  empire,  still  this  could 
only  he  done  gradually  and  in  the  meanwhile  he  could  not  absolutely 
overlook  local  interests.  It  seems  evident,  therefore,  that  permission 
was  at  this  time  granted  to  certain  commercial  centres  of  importance 
to  have  coined,  at  their  own  expense  and  in  the  central  mint  in  Tarsos, 
a series  of  coins  conforming  to  the  old  standard  and  type  by  which  so 
much  of  their  trade  in  the  past  had  been  carried  on. 

It  was  the  last  issue  in  Cilicia  of  the  satrap  Mazaios  which  evi- 
dently served  as  the  model  for  the  new  coins  (compare  Plate  1,  5). 
Perhaps  these  types  were  chosen,  in  addition  to  the  obvious  commer- 
cial reasons,  because  of  their  peculiar  appropriateness  to  the  issuing 
mint.  On  the  obverse  is  enthroned  the  chief  divinity  of  Tarsos — Baal- 
Tars  as  the  Aramaic  legend  definitely  states.  On  the  reverse  the 
emblem  of  the  city  itself  — the  lion  attacking  a hull  — is  depicted  over 
the  city  walls.  The  presence  of  the  club  but  confirms  what  the  types 
suggest. 

The  joint  action  of  the  four  municipalities  of  Tarsos,  Mallos,  Soloi 
and  Issos  in  causing  to  lie  struck  a quasi -autonomous  issue  raises  an 
interesting  point.  In  studying  the  fourth  century  coinages  of  eastern 
Cilicia  it  would  seem  as  if  towards  the  middle  of  that  century,  or  even 
a little  earlier,  the  Persians  suppressed  all  autonomous  coinages  of 
three  of  these  cities  in  favor  of  the  satrapal  issues.  At  least,  the  style 
of  such  pieces  as  have  survived  would  seem  to  suggest  that  only  Soloi 
was  permitted  to  issue  autonomous  coins  down  to  the  arrival  of  Alex- 
ander. It  will  also  be  remembered  that  of  all  the  Cilician  cities  it  was 
only  Soloi  that  seems  to  have  shown  any  marked  hostility  towards 
Alexander  and  for  this  reason  was  fined  two  hundred  talents  and  had  a 
Macedonian  garrison  placed  within  its  walls.3"  Was  it  that  the  Solians, 
having  been  specially  favored  by  the  Persians  under  their  usual  custom 
of  “ divide  et  imperci ,”  feared  they  were  about  to  lose  some  of  their 
special  privileges  under  the  new  regime  ! If  so,  they  only  succeeded 
in  causing  their  fear  to  come  true  for  they  were  reduced  to  equality 
with  their  sister  cities  of  Mallos  and  Issos  and,  among  other  things 
were  deprived  of  their  right  to  issue  true  autonomous  coins.  They  do 
hot  seem  even  to  have  struck  coins  of  the  Alexander  type,  at  least  until 


80  Arrian  II 


22  Tarsos  Under  Alexander 

after  the  death  of  the  Macedonian.  This  is  in  strong  contrast  with  the 
cities  of  Cyprus  and  Phoenicia. 

CfoLD  Alexander  Staters. 

SERIES  I,  circa  333-327  B.  C. 

Head  of  Athene  to  r.  in  crested  and  ser-  AAEIANAPOY  in  straight  line  on  1. 
pent  adorned  Corinthian  helmet.  She  Winged  Nike  on  basis,  seen  from  the  front, 
wears  necklace  of  pearls  and  her  hair,  in  turns  head  to  1.,  holds  wreath  in  out- 
corkscrew  curls,  falls  looselyabout,  her  head,  stretched  r.  and  stylis  of  peculiar  form  in  1. 


FIRST  GROUP 


12 

(var.  Muller,  no. 

193). 

In  left  field  : kantharos. 

< diverse  die.  Reverse 

die. 

A . . . 

. a 

E.  T.  N.,  Plate  III,  14. 

B . . . 

■ P 

Petrograd  (no.  198). 

13 

(var.  Muller,  no. 

105). 

In  left  field  : trident  (downwards). 

C . . . 

• 7 

E.  T.  N. ; Petrograd. 

SECOND  GROUP. 

Simi 

lar  head,  but  hail 

■ now 

represented  Winged  Nike  on  basis  as 

short  curly  locks  tight  to  head.  stylis  of  same  form  as  precedi 

tion  in  more  or  less  curved  li 

14 

(var.  Muller,  no. 

193). 

In  left  field  : kantharos. 

I)  . . . 

. 8 

London,  Plate  III,  1G. 

E . . . 

e 

E.  T.  N.,  Plate  III,  15. 

15 

(var.  Muller,  no. 

105). 

In  left  field  : trident  (downwards). 

F . . . 

• F 

Paris,  Plate  III,  17. 

G . . . 

• ? 

Alexandria,  Plate  III,  18. 

THIRD  GROUP. 

Similar,  but  bead  larger,  and  hair  a mass  Similar,  but  Nike  larger  and  the  stylis 
of  curly  locks.  adorned  at  apex  with  a Hying  Nike. 

J6  ( ).  Beneath  right  wing  : amphora.31 

11  ....  y Berlin  ; E.  T.  N.  Plate  III,  19  ; Paris;  another  in 

the  trade. 

17  ( ).  Beneath  right  wing:  trident  (to  left). 

J . ...  0 Vienna  (no.  10430)  ; Berlin  (two  specimens), 

Plate  III,  no.  20  ; Petrograd  ; another 
in  the  trade. 


During  its  first  years  as  a member  of  Alexander’s  empire  the  Tarsos 
mint  did  not  confine  its  activities  to  striking  silver  tetradrachms  for  the 


81  Perhaps  really  intended  for  a Kautharos. 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


28 

central  government,  and  Persic . staters  for  the  account  of  the  four 
municipalities  of  Tarsos,  Hallos,  Soloi  and  Issos.  Gold  staters  of 
Attic  weight  and  bearing  Alexander’s  name  and  well  known  types  were 
also  necessary  for  the  use  of  a province  of  such  commercial  and  strate- 
gic importance  as  Cilicia  at  this  time  was. 

The  first  series  of  gold  Alexander  staters  struck  at  Tarsos  and  cat- 
alogued above,  can  he  divided  into  three  groups,  according  to  the  mod- 
ifications which  occur  from  time  to  time  in  their  style.  The  entire 
issue  seems  to  have  been  supervised  by  but  two  magistrates  signing 
themselves  Trident  and  Kantharos  (the  latter  symbol  in  the  third  group 
is  given  more  the  form  of  an  amphora  with  base) . Although  these  same 
two  symbols  were  also  being  used  on  the  staters  struck  at  this  time  in 
Macedonia,  the  style  of  the  two  series  is  so  radically  different  that  their 
several  issues  can  be  distinguished  with  ease.  It  is  only  in  the  first 
group  of  the  Tarsos  staters,  a group  that  approaches  the  most  closely 
to  the  Macedonian  prototype,  that  we  would  find  any  difficulty  at  all  in 
making  the  distinction.  Even  here  this  difficulty  vanishes  at  once  so 
soon  as  a visual  comparison  can  be  made,  as  can  be  seen  by  the  follow- 
ing cuts.  A mere  glance  will  suffice  to  show  that  the  drawing  and 


Macedonia  Tarsos  Macedonia 

composition  on  the  Tarsos  pieces  is  finer,  the  outlines  more  graceful, 
the  details  more  delicately  indicated,  and  the  relief  lower.  On  the 
Macedonian  pieces  the  locks  of  Athene  hang  down  in  stiff  and  clumsy 
curls,  the  figure  of  Nike  is  of  stockier  build  and  stands  less  gracefully. 
The  shapes  of  the  trident  symbol  also  vary;  on  the  first  and  second 
groups  of  the  Tarsos  coins  the  prongs  are  always  barbed  and  longer 
than  on  the  Macedonian  pieces  where  the  prongs  of  the  trident  are 
always  short  and  graduate  to  a sharp  point.  The  crossbar  of  the  stylis 
borne  by  Nike  varies  on  the  Tarsos  staters  from  that  found  on  the  Mace- 


24 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


donian  by  having  the  projections  at  the  tips  face  downwards  instead  of 
upwards.  There  is  little  need  of  pointing  out  the  many  and  great  di- 
vergencies in  style  and  details  of  composition  between  the  staters  of  the 
second  and  third  groups  of  the  Tarsos  issues  and  those  of  Macedonia. 
The  two  series  in  these  respects  are  utterly  unlike. 

We  have  seen  that  the  series  of  Alexander  staters  now  under  dis- 
cussion have  nothing  to  do  with  the  Macedonian  issues,  although  the 
latter  are  marked  with  similar  symbols  Kantharos  and  Trident.  It  is 
a simple  matter  to  prove  that  the  two  series  have  nothing  in  common 
and  therefore  were  struck  at  different  mints  ; but  what  specific  grounds 
have  we  for  assigning  varieties  12  to  17  to  Tarsos'?  In  the  first  place 
our  choice  of  possible  mints  is  limited  to  the  northeastern  corner  of  the 
Mediterranean  by  the  very  style  and  details  of  composition  which  we 
have  found  so  divergent  from  those  on  the  staters  of  Macedonian  ori- 
gin. The  accompanying  cut  will  serve  to  show  the  great  similarity 


Tarsiote  Stater  Cypriote  Stater 


between  a stater  of  our  first  group  and  a contemporary  stater  which  the 
writer  has  elsewhere32  shown  was  struck  at  Salamis  in  Cyprus.  In 
every  essential  detail  the  Cypriote  piece  is  a copy.  Note,  for  instance, 
the  arrangement  of  Athene’s  locks  — in  contrast  to  the  Macedonian 
series  ; note  also  the  similarity  in  pose  and  details  of  the  Nike  figure. 
On  both,  the  cross  piece  of  the  stylis  has  the  turned  down  end  projec- 
tions, a characteristic  peculiarity  only  found  on  the  staters  of  Cyprus 
and  those  now  under  discussion.  Again  compare  the  reverse  of  variety 
16  with  the  following  cut  which  is  the  reverse  of  a stater  from  Kition 


32  u Some  Cypriote  1 Alexanders’,”  Num,  Chron.,  4th  Series,  vol.  XV,  1915. 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


25 


in  Cyprus.  Aside  from  the  general  similarity  in  appearance,  notice 
the  same  unusual  position  for  the  symbol  or  monogram,  the  same  curious 
way  Nike  has  her  hair  done  high  upon  her  head.  Again,  the  style  of 
the  Athene  head  on  nos.  16  and  17  is  directly  copied  on  a certain  stater 
of  this  period  which  belongs  to  Arados  (see  cut  no.  14).  If  the  pecu- 


liarities of  style  place  our  staters  in  the  northeastern  corner  of  the  Med- 
iterranean, the  staters  of  Series  11  prove  that  it  is  the  Tarsos  mint 
which  issued  them.  These  will  be  treated  under  the  next  section;  suf- 
fice it  here  therefore  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  same  die 
cutter  produced  their  obverses,  as  will  be  seen  by  comparing  Plate  111, 
nos.  19  and  20  with  nos.  21  and  22  on  the  same  Plate.  In  addition  to 
technical  reasons  we  also  have  the  law  of  probabilities — because  of  the 
elimination  of  all  other  possible  localities  — to  confirm  our  decision  that 
it  could  only  have  been  at  Tarsos  where  our  particular  staters  could 
have  been  struck.  In  the  first  place  it  must  be  remembered  that  Tar- 
sos was  undoubtedly  the  most  important  city,  from  a governmental 
standpoint  at  least,  between  Sardis  in  the  west  and  Babylon  in  the  East. 
As  under  the  Persian  Empire,  so  now,  Sardis  remained  the  chief  capi- 
tal of  the  Asiatic  lands  north  and  west  of  the  Taurus  mountains,  Baby- 
lon of  all  lands  from  Syria  to  the  eastern  confines  of  Persia.  Tarsos, 
as  actual  capital  in  Persian  times  of  Cilicia  and  North  Syria,  remained 
under  Alexander  the  most  important  metropolis  and  centre  of  gov- 
ernment of  the  entire  Cilician,  Syrian  and  Phoenician  districts.  As 
Antioch  had  not  yet  been  founded,  there  could  be  no  possible  rival,  for 
the  flourishing  city-states  of  Phoenicia  and  Cyprus  were  at  this  time 
more  like  semi -independent  allies  than  like  so  many  integral  portions 
of  the  empire.  The  Alexandrine  coinages  of  these  cities  bring  out 
this  point  clearly.  The  issues  of  Arados,  Byblos,  Sidon,  Ake,  Damas- 
kos,  and  the  Cypriote  cities  all  bear  mint  marks  of  purely  local  signifi- 
cance, showing  the  almost  autonomous  character  of  their  coinages. 
The  only  exceptions  are  the  earliest  gold  staters  of  Sidon,  and  silver 
tetradrachms  of  Ake  which,  perhaps,  were  struck  by  royal  authority 
during  the  sieges  of  Tyre  and  Gaza.  They  did  not  need  local  mint 
marks  as,  presumably,  the  coinage  was  only  intended  for  the  use  of 


•26 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


Alexander’s  army  and  so  was  issued  under  the  supervision,  not  of  local 
magistrates,  but  of  royal  appointees.  We  thus  see  that  all  the  large 
cities  of  Phoenicia  and  Cyprus  are  amply  provided  with  a gold  coinage 
struck  in  their  local  mints.  There  is  no  important  city  in  or  near  the 
coasts  of  the  northeastern  corner  of  the  Mediterranean  which  has  not 
a gold  coinage  at  this  time,  except  the  four  large  cities  of  eastern  Cili- 
cia. But  Mallos,  Soloi  and  Issos  now  no  longer  possessed  a mint  of 
their  own  as  we  saw  how  they  had  to  have  their  issues  of  Persic  staters 
struck  at  Tarsos.  Tarsos  therefore  remains  as  the  only  possible  and 
logical  location  for  our  issue  of  Alexander  staters.  Particularly  is  this 
the  case  as,  possessing  only  magistrate’s  symbols,  on  the  analogy  of  the 
two  series  of  Sid  on  and  Ake  mentioned  above,  our  staters  would  seem 
to  have  been  purely  royal  issues.  Tarsos,  being  the  governmental  cen- 
tre of  all  this  district,  would  then  be  the  natural  place  to  which  to 
assign  them.  The  purpose  of  this  issue  of  gold  staters  would  be  to  sup- 
plant the  darics  of  the  preceding  regime  and  to  defray  the  expenses  of 
the  large  military  forces  stationed  in  Cilicia  for  the  protection  both  of 
the  province  itself  and  of  the  important  highway  which  traversed  it. 

On  one  issue  of  the  contemporary  tetradrachms  (var.  5)  a trident 
was  also  used  as  an  additional  symbol.  Possibly  we  have  to  do  with 
the  same  supervising  magistrate.  In  this  case,  however,  the  form  of 
the  trident  varies  slightly,  having  some  ornamental  scrolls  between  the 
prongs  and  beneath  the  cross-bar.  Perhaps  on  the  gold  pieces  these 
scrolls  were  omitted  because  of  the  necessarily  smaller  scale  of  the 
symbol. 

Like  the  silver  issues, — both  Alexander  tetradrachms  and  Persic 
staters, — these  gold  staters  are  also  struck  from  loose  dies,  a character- 
istic of  the  Cilician  mints  under  Alexander  the  Great,  in  contrast  to 
the  neighboring  Cypriote  and  Phoenician  mints. 

Gold  Alexander  Staters. 

SERIES  II,  circa  327-324  B.  0. 

Head  of  Athene  to  r.  of  exactly  similar  AAEIANAPOY  on  1.  Winged  Nike 
style  and  type  as  on  the  third  group  of  standing  to  1.  on  basis,  holding  wreath  in 
Series  I,  except  that  now  a running  griffin  outstretched  r.  and  stylis  in  1.  In  front 
adorns  the  helmet.  ot  Nike  a plow. 

J8  (Muller,  no.  11a).  Beneath  right  wing:  Thunderbolt. 

K . . . . l London,  Plate  III,  21. 

19  ( ),  Beneath  right  wing : Rain’s  head. 

lv  . . . . k London,  Plate  HI,  22;  Berlin  (two  specimens). 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


This  new  issue  of  Alexander  staters  followed  immediately  upon  the 
third  group  of  the  preceding  series,  as  can  be  seen  by  the  style.  Ex- 
cept that  the  serpent  has  been  changed  to  a griffin  on  Athene’s  helmet, 
obverse  die  K is  so  similar  to  die  J that  we  have  every  reason  to  sup- 
pose it  was  cut  by  the  same  artist. 

This  issue  appears  to  be  more  local  in  character  than  the  previous 
one  — at  least  an  additional  symbol,  the  Plow,  which  may  be  supposed 
to  have  a direct  reference  to  the  surrounding  district  of  Tarsos,  is  here 
placed  on  the  reverse  alongside  the  changing  magistratal  symbol.  The 
plow  has  already  appeared  on  certain  issues  struck  at  Tarsos  (Brit.  Mus. 
Cat.,  PI.  xxxii,  no.  7)  where  it  forms  part  of  the  typie,  an  eagle  with 
extended  wings  being  perched  upon  it.  Like  the  wheat  stalk  in  the 
held  of  the  Persic  staters  of  Alexander  (figs.  5 to  7)  and  Mazaios  (Plate 
1,  no.  5),  or  held  in  the  hand  of  Baal -Tars  on  other  staters  of  this 
satrap  (Plate  I,  nos.  1-4)  and  of  Datames  (Brit.  Mus.  Cat.,  PI.  xxix, 
nos.  11-15) ,33  the  plow  too  may  typify  the  far  famed  fertility  of  the 
Tarsiote  plain.34 

Of  the  two  magistrate’s  symbols  enumerated  above,  one,  the  Barn’s 
head,  has  already  appeared  as  a personal  symbol  beneath  the  throne  of 
Baal -Tars  on  certain  varieties  of  the  Mazaios  staters  (see  Brit.  Mus. 
Cat.,  PI.  xxx,  no.  7 and  Babelon,  Traite  II2,  PI.  cxi,  nos.  19,  20,  PI. 
cxii,  no.  1).  The  time  which  elapsed  between  this  appearance  and  the 
one  on  the  Alexander  staters  now  under  discussion  perhaps  precludes  the 
possibility  of  this  symbol  having  belonged  to  one  and  the  same  person . 

Alexander  Silver  Issues. 

SERIES  II,  circa  327-324  B.  C. 

Head  of  youthful  Ilerakles  to  r.  as  on  AAEIANAPOY  on  r.  Zeus  with  eagle 
Series  L Circle  of  dots.  and  sceptre  as  on  Series  I,  except  that 

now  lie  always  has  heavy  locks  of  hair 
over  the  nape  of  his  neck,  and  the  foot- 
stool is  sometimes  missing. 

FIRST  GROUP. 

20  ( ).  TETRADRACHM. 

r 

Beneath  throne  : B,  Pellet  beneath  left  arm. 

XXVIII  . . . .110  Egger  Sale,  May,  1912,  no.  003,  Plate  IV,  1. 

33  The  ear  of  wheat  even  forms  the  reverse  type  of  an  early  stater  of  Tarsos  (Brit.  Mus.  Cat., 
PI.  xxviii,  no.  12)  and,  in  connection  with  the  obverse  type  of  the  lion  and  bull,  certainly  lias 
direct  reference  to  Tarsos  and  the  fertility  of  its  surrounding  plain. 

34  See,  however,  the  discussions  of  this  symbol  on  pp.  102  and  103. 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


•28 


XXIX 

XXX 


. 117  E.  T.  N.,  Plate  IV,  2. 
. 11 S Amer.  Num.  Soc. 

. 116  E.  T.  N. 


. 117  “ Cambridge  (McClean  Coll.),  Plate  IV,  3. 

21  (Midler,  no.  1283).  TETRADRACHM. 

Beneath  throne  : Pellet  beneath  left  arm. 

XXVIII  ...  116  Amer.  Num.  Soc.,  Plate  IV,  4. 

XXXI  ....  no  E.  T.  N.,  Plate  IV,  5. 

22  ( )•  DIDRACHM. 

Beneath  throne  : r,  Pellet  beneath  left  arm. 

London  (ex  Montagu  Sale),  Plate  IV,  G. 

23  ( )•  DRACHM. 

Beneath  throne  : T,  Pellet  beneath  left  arm. 

London,  Plate  IV,  7. 

24  (- ).  TRIOBCL. 

Beneath  throne  : T,  Pellet  beneath  left  arm. 

London,  Plate  IV,  8;  E.  4'.  N.;  Dattari. 


25  ( ).  TETRADRACHM. 

Pellet  beneath  left  arm. 


XXVIII  . . . 

. 121 

E.  T.  N.,  Plate  IV,  9. 

. 122 

“ Amer.  Num.  Soc. 

. 123 

“ 

XXIX35  . . . 

. 124 

“ Plate  IV,  10. 

. 127, 

“ 

. 136 

“ ( Elder,  no.  211 ). 

XXX  . . . 

. 122 

Egger  Sale,  May,  1912,  no 

. 123 

E.  T.  N. 

. 12  If 

“ 

. 127 

“ 

. 12  S 

“ 

XXXII  . 

. 121 

In  the  trade. 

. 124 

E.  T.  N. 

. 127 

Elder,  no.  188. 

. no 

London,  Plate  IV,  12:  E. 

. 130 

Elder,  no.  18. 

2b  ( Muller,  no 
Pellet 


1282). 
beneath  throne 


TETRADRACHM. 


XXXII  ....  1.71  E.  T.  N.,  Plate  IV,  13. 

27  ( ).  TETRADRACHM. 

Pellet  beneath  throne,  another  beneath  left  arm. 
XXVIII  . . . . 1.33  Oxford  (Ashmolean). 


35  Break  beneath  chin  appears.  General  appearance  of  die  still  sharp. 


Taksos  Under  Alexander 


29 


XXIX™  . . 

. . IXX 

E.  T.  N. 

. . 1x4 

“ (Elder,  no.  97 

. . !')') 

Elder,  no.  231. 

. / f it ) 

Elder,  no.  118. 

. . 1X7 

E.  T.  N. 

. . / 38 

L.  V.  Case. 

. . 1X0 

Toronto. 

. . no 

E.  T.  N. 

XXX  . . 

. . no 

it 

. . 141 

tt 

. . m 

“ Plate  IV,  15. 

. . 14s 

“ 

. . 1U 

“ 

. . no 

. . no 

Elder,  no.  227. 

. . 147 

V.  Hammer. 

XXXII  . . 

. . 140 

Amer.  Num.  Soc. 

. . no 

E.  T.  N.,  Plate  IV,  16. 

. . Io0 

tt 

. lol 

In  the  trade. 

. . 1X2 

L.  V.  Case. 

28  (Muller,  no. 

1281).  TRIOBOL. 

London.37 

29  (Muller,  no. 

1284).  TETRADRACHM. 

Beneath  thrc 

me  : ©,  Pellet  beneath  left  arm. 

XXVIII™  . . 

. . loo 

E.  T.  N. 

. . i.n 

“ 

. . loo 

In  the  trade. 

. . /of) 

E.  T.  N.,  Plate  IV,  17. 

. . 1X7 

“ 

. . 1XS 

“ 

XXIX  . . 

. . 1X0 

“ 

. . wo 

Elder,  no.  163. 

XXX™ . . 

. . IXX 

V.  Hammer,  Plate  IV, 

. . 1X0 

Amer.  Num.  Soc.  ; E. 

. . it;  / 

E.  T.  N. 

More  breaks  appeal 


162 

on  this  die. 

37  It  is  uncertain  if  this  variety  really  exists.  Muller  claims  it  to  be  preserved  in  the  British 
Museum.  But  the  only  specimen  the  writer  is  cognizant  of  is  the  one  catalogued  under  var.  2.'!. 

38DieXXVJlI  now  showing  effects  of  long  use.  Details  becoming  blurred  and  break  ap- 
pears beneath  nose. 

3n  Details  becoming  blurred. 


30 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


XXX  . 

. . . 163 

E.  T.  N. 

. . . io  i. 

Oxford  (Ashmolean); 

XXXII40  . 

. . . 178 

E.  T.  N.,  Plate  V,  1. 

. . . 170 

In  the  trade. 

. . . 100 

E.  T.  N. 

. . . 167 

« 

30  ( ).  TETRADRACHM. 

Beneath  throne  : 0 Pellet  beneath  left  arm,  another  between  sceptre  and 


throne. 

XXIX  . . 

. . 166 

E.  T.  N.,  Plate  V,  2. 

. . 167 

In  the  trade. 

XXX 11  . . 

. . 168 

Oxford  (Ashmolean)  ; E.  T.  N 

31  (Nuin.  Zeitschrift,  vol.  I,  1869,  p.  55,  no.  317).  DRACHM. 
Beneath  throne : © 

Berlin. 


SECOND  OROUT. 

The  general  characteristics  of  this  group  are  broader  flans,  the  footstool  alway 
present,  and  the  inscription  AAEIANAPOY  always  written  in  a straight  line. 

32  ( )•  TETRADRACHM. 

Beneath  throne  : ivy  leaf  (pointing  upwards). 

XXXIII  ....  100  E.  T.  N.,  Plate  V,  3. 

XXXIV  ....  170  “ Plate  V,  4. 

33  ( ).  TETRADRACHM. 

Beneath  throne:  ivy  leaf  ( pointing  downwards). 

XXXV  . ...  171  E.  T.  N.,  Plate  V,  5. 

34  (Num.  Zeitschrift,  vol.  I,  1869,  p.  38,  no.  81).  TETRADRACHM. 

Beneath  throne  : bunch  of  grapes. 

XXXVI  . . . . 172  E.  T.  N. 

. 173  “ Plate  V,  6. 

35  ( ).  TETRADRACHM. 

Beneath  throne  : Pellet  over  bunch  of  grapes. 

XXXIV  ....  174  E.  T.  N.,  Plate  V,  7. 

. 177  “ 

....  170 

XXXVII  ....  170  “ Plate  V,  8. 

3b  ( TETRADRACHM. 

Beneath  throne  : Two  pellets  over  bunch  of  grapes. 

XXXIV  ....  177  Oxford  (Ashmolean),  Plate  V,  9. 

XXXVIII  ....  178  E.  T.  N.  (Elder,  no.  186),  Plate  V,  10. 

....  170 


i0  New  breaks  appear  and  details  growing  blurred. 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


31 


37  ( 


-).  TETRADRACHM. 
Pellet  over  left  arm. 


XXXVIII  . 

. . . ISO 

Oxford  (Ashmolean);  E.  T.  N. 

XXXIX  . 

. . . 181 

E.  T.  N.,  Plate  V,  12. 

. . . 182 

“ 

38  ( )• 

TETRADRACHM. 

Beneath  throne  : © Pellet 

over  left  arm. 

XXXVIII41  . 

. . . 188 

E.  T.  N. 

. . . m 

“ Plate  V.  13. 

XXXIX  . 

. . . 185 

“ 

. . . 186 

. . . 187 

Oxford  (Ashmolean). 

XL  . 

. . . 188 

E.  T.  N.  (Elder,  no.  104). 

. . . 189 

Plate  V,  14. 

. . . 190 

Egger  Sale,  May,  1912,  no.  004 

XLI  . 

. . . 191 

E.  T.  N. 

. . . 198 

. . . 198 

F.  M.  Endicott,  Plate  V.  15. 

THIRD  GROUP. 

Similar  to  preceding  except  that  the  title  BA2IAEQ2  is  n 

ANAPOY  on  the 

reverse. 

39  ( Muller, 

no.  1280).  TETI 

L\  DRACHM. 

XLI  . 

. . . 19  If 

Toronto  ; E.  T.  N.,  Plate  VI,  1 

. . . 195 

E.  T.  N. 

. . . 196 

U 

. . . 197 

Cambridge  (Leake  Coll.). 

. . . 198 

E.  T.  N. 

40  ( Muller, 

no.  1285).  TETRADRACHM. 

Beneath  throne  : © Pellet 

over  left  arm. 

XXXIX42  . 

. . . 199 

E.  T.  N.,  Plate  VI,  2 ; another 

. . . 200 

In  the  trade. 

XLI  . 

. . . 201 

E.  T.  N.,  Plate  VI,  3. 

Accompanying  the  staters  of  Series  II  and  following  immediately 
upon  the  tetradrachms  of  Series  1 and  the  first  issue  of  Persic  silver 
staters  comes  a new  issue  of  Alexander  tetradrachms.  These,  like  the 
gold,  are  all  distinguished  by  the  symbol  plow  accompanied  by  magis- 
trate letters,  symbols,  or  pellets.  It  seems  possible,  as  was  suggested 
above,  that  we  here  have  to  do  with  a real  mintmark, — that  is,  a sym- 

41  Flaw  on  neck  and  jaw  increasing,  other  signs  of  wear  beginning  to  show. 

42  Obverse  die  becoming  very  much  worn. 


32 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


bol  intended  to  definitely  mark  these  particular  coins  as  having  been 
struck  at  Tarsos.  On  the  other  hand,  the  succeeding  issues,  as  we  will 
soon  see,  do  not  confirm  this  assumption  and  the  plow  may,  after  all, 
be  only  the  personal  symbol  of  the  chief  magistrate  supervising  the 
coinage.  Limited  as  our  present  knowledge  is  of  the  coinages  struck 
during  the  lifetime  of  Alexander  the  Great,  it  would  never -the -less 
seem  as  if  the  four  principal  cities  of  Phoenicia  (Arados,  Byblos,  Sidon, 
Ake) , Damaskos  the  metropolis  of  Coele -Syria,  and  the  cities  of  Cyprus 
were  the  only  mints  allowed  to  place  marks  of  definite  local  significance 
upon  their  Alexander  issues.  Now  we  know  for  a certainty  that  Cyprus 
was  never  subjugated  by  Alexander;  its  princes  and  cities,  however, 
became  his  allies  and  were  treated  as  such,  retaining  possession  of  their 
own  fleets  and  armies  as  well  as  their  immemorial  right  of  coinage.43 
Under  the  Persian  empire  the  Phoenician  cities  of  Arados,  Byblos, 
Sidon  and  Tyre  were  allies 44  — not  subjects  — of  the  Great  King.  As 
Alexander  made  it  a practice  in  the  eastern  portion  of  his  empire  to 
take  over,  with  as  little  change  as  possible,  the  customs  and  conditions 
of  rule  of  the  Persian  regime  it  is,  a priori,  likely  that  Arados,  Byblos 
and  Sidon  became  his  allies  when  they  voluntarily  deserted  the  Persian 
cause  and  placed  their  fleets  and  resources  at  his  disposal.  The  fact 
that  history  distinctly  mentions  the  Phoenician  princes  and  the  Phoe- 
nician fleets  after  this  time,  together  with  the  local  character  of  their 
Alexandrine  issues,  shows  this  surmise  to  be  the  correct  one.  Under 
the  Persians  Tyre  was  the  fourth  member  of  this  group,  but  when 
in  333  B.  C.  she  refused  to  receive  Alexander  within  her  walls  and 
remained  loyal  to  the  Persian  cause,  she  was  besieged,  taken,  prac- 
tically destroyed,  and  her  population  sold  into  slavery.  The  consider- 
able city  of  Ake,  a few  miles  to  the  south,  seems  then  to  have  taken 
her  place.  At  least  we  are  led  to  this  surmise  by  the  absence  of  any 
Alexander  coinage  attributable  to  Tyre  much  before  the  end  of  the 
fourth  century  B.  C.,  while  Ake  during  this  very  period  issued  a pro- 
lific coinage  marked  by  the  dates  of  a local  era  and  the  city’s  name  in 
Phoenician  characters.  Of  the  position  that  Damascus  enjoyed  at  this 
period  we  know  little  or  nothing,  but  as  she  was  a rich  and  powerful 
metropolis,  and  was  allowed  to  place  her  initials  and  symbol  (the  ram) 
upon  her  Alexander  coinage,  perhaps  she  too,  like  her  Phoenician 
neighbors,  was  an  ally  rather  than  a subject  of  the  new  order  of  things. 

43  Num.  Chron.,  toe.  c it. 

44  Herodotus,  iii,  10;  Hieronymus,  “ Adv.  Jovinian,”  i,  45;  “ Persarum  foedus  Aegyptii 
regis  societate  neglexerat”  (Strato). 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


33 


Now  the  purpose  of  this  digression  has  been  to  emphasize  the  point 
we  have  apparently  gained,  namely,  that  wherever  it  has  been  possible 
to  establish  the  local  significance  of  certain  symbols  •and  letters  appear- 
ing on  coins  struck  in  the  East  during  Alexander’s  lifetime,  in  every 
case  such  coins  are  attributable  to  some  allied  or  semi -independent 
community.  As  the  number  of  such  cities  as  well  as  such  specially 
marked  coinages  is  practically  limited  to  the  ones  just  mentioned,  it 
follows  that  the  Alexandrine  coinage  of  this  period,  struck  in  the  cities 
subject  to  the  central  government,  was  not  permitted  to  bear  marks  of 
true  local  significance.  In  other  words  the  symbols  and  letters  found 
on  them  are  magistratal  and  not  municipal.  In  turning  to  the  remainder 
of  Alexander’s  eastern  issues  there  is  not  a symbol  or  monogram,  ex- 
cept those  enumerated  above,  which  can  satisfactorily  be  proved  to  have 
belonged  to  a locality  rather  than  to  a magistrate.  We  therefore  have 
no  reason  to  expect  a local  symbol  on  the  Alexandrine  coinages  at  Tar- 
sos.  As  pointed  out  before,  the  only  truly  municipal  coinage  of  Tarsos 
at  this  period  were  the  Persic  staters  of  local  types.  It  is  consequently 
not  at  all  certain  that  the  plow  has  any  real  local  significance,  but  was 
probably  the  personal  badge  of  the  supervising  magistrate. 

With  the  appearance  of  the  present  series,  marked  by  the  plow,  a 
change  seems  to  have  taken  place  in  the  internal  arrangements  of  our 
mint.  No  longer  do  the  coins  present  any  evidence  that  they  were 
produced  in  two  more  or  less  independent  branches,  or  “officinae,”  of 
the  imperial  mint  establishment.  Within  each  of  the  three  groups,  into 
which  it  lias  seemed  advisable  to  divide  the  present  series,  obverse  dies 
are  used  indiscriminately  in  conjunction  with  the  many  varieties  ob- 
servable in  reverse  dies.  These  three  groups  are  consecutive  and  not, 
perchance,  contemporary  as  proved  by  progression  of  style  and  the 
constant  reuse  of  worn  reverse  dies  from  a preceding  group. 

Our  series  opens  with  the  magistrate  B,  of  Series  I,  still  in  office. 
He  however  does  not  long  remain  as  lie  places  his  initial  only  on  the 
first  few  issues.  That  these  are  the  first  issues  of  the  new  series  is 
definitely  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  obverse  dies  NXVITT,  XXIX  and 
XXX  do  not  here  reveal  the  pronounced  fractures  and  other  signs  of 
wear  so  evident  on  them  not  long  afterward.  The  remainder  of  this 
series  bears  the  signatures  r,  ©,  ivy  leaf  and  bunch  of  grapes,  accom- 
panied by  various  arrangements  of  dots  or  pellets,  the  whole  issue 
supervised  by  the  magistrate  whose  symbol  is  the  plow  (if  indeed  the 
Plow  is  not  a mintniark  of  Tarsos  itself) , 


84 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


The  entire  sequential  arrangement  of  Series  II  is  here  based  on 
progressive  signs  of  wear  observable  in  the  obverse  dies  used,  guided 
by  the  obvious  progression  in  style  and  technique  displayed  by  the  dies 
themselves.  It  is  noticeable,  as  our  series  advances,  that  the  flans  tend 
to  grow  broader  — and  therefore  thinner,  — the  relief  lower,  the  design 
more  spread,  the  artistic  qualities  more  stereotyped  but  the  actual  exe- 
cution of  details  perhaps  a little  better. 

The  length  of  time  assigned  to  our  series  (circa  327-324  B.  C.)  is 
based  on  two  observations.  Series  I,  with  its  twenty-seven  obverse 
dies  and  one  hundred  and  fifteen  reverse  dies,  we  had  reason  to  believe 
must  have  covered  about  six  years.  On  the  strength  of  this  our  present 
series  with  its  fourteen  obverse  dies  and  eighty -five  reverse  dies  ought 
to  have  covered  at  least  three  years.  In  following  up  this  indication 
we  then  find  that  our  third  group  of  Series  II,  characterized  by  the 
presence  for  the  first  time  of  the  title  fiaaiXevs,  would  fall  about  324  B.  C. 
Now  it  has  been  the  writer’s  experience  in  studying  the  early  Alexan- 
der coinages  of  Macedonia  and  Babylon  that  their  first  use  of  this  title 
seems  to  have  occurred  about  a year  or  so  previous  to  the  death  of 
Alexander,  or  between  325  and  324  B.  0.  A discussion  of  the  reasons 
for  this  innovation  at  this  particular  time  would  probably  only  lead  to 
indefinite  results.  In  passing,  the  writer  would  therefore  prefer  to 
merely  hazard  the  suggestion  that  the  title  was  for  the  first  time  adopted 
on  the  royal  coinage  in  this  year  in  consequence  of  the  glorious  news 
that  must  then  have  reached  the  west  from  India.  It  was  in  325  B.  C. 
that  Alexander  had  finally  overcome  all  resistance  in  the  last  remain- 
ing province  of  the  Persian  Empire,  and  therefore  that  empire,  in  its 
fullest  extent,  now  acknowledged  him  as  its  sovereign  and  overlord  in 
place  of  the  Persian  king.  Alexander  was  by  right  of  birth  /3aai\evs  of 
Macedonia  and  Thrace,  and  now,  by  right  of  conquest,  he  takes  the 
place  of  the  Persian  f3a<n\ev$.  As  such  the  central  and  royal  mints  of 
Macedonia,  of  Tarsos  and  of  Babylon  would  now  seem  to  have  defi- 
nitely proclaimed  him  on  their  respective  coinages. 

The  material  on  which  our  studies  of  Series  11  is  based  is  some- 
what more  complete  than  that  of  Series  I.  The  result  being  that  for 
the  present  series  we  know  of  fourteen  obverse  and  eighty -five  reverse 
dies  — an  average  of  six  reverse  dies  to  one  obverse.  This  more  closely 
approaches  what  would  seem  to  have  been  the  usual  proportion  in  an- 
cient mints  due  to  the  greater  wear  and  tear  that  had  to  be  endured  by 
the  reverse  die.  As,  in  the  present  case,  the  obverse  dies  seem  to  have 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


35 


been  indiscriminately  used  with  various  reverse  ones  we  have  the  fol- 
lowing unusually  high  proportions  of  actual  usage:  die  XXXII  is  found 
associated  with  no  less  than  sixteen  reverses,  die  XXIX  with  seventeen, 
and  die  XXX  with  twenty -one.  Because  of  the  indiscriminate  use  in 
this  particular  case  of  various  reverse  dies,  this  perhaps  does  not  give 
us  a fair  idea  of  the  true  average  of  reverse  and  obverse  dies  actually 
cut  for  use  in  an  ancient  mint. 


Alexander  Issues. 

SERIES  III,  circa  324-319  B.  C. 

FIRST  GROUP. 

TETR  A DRACHM. 

Head  of  Herakles  as  on  preceding  issue  Similar  type,  style,  and  inscription  as  on 
(third  group).  preceding  issue  (third  group). 

BRONZE.  Same  types  as  no.  II. 

41  (Muller,  no.  1286).  TETR  ADR  ACH  M. 

In  field,  PV.  beneath  throne,  0. 

Obverse  die.  Reverse  die. 


43 


XLII 


202 


XLII  I 


202 

204 

202 


42 


E.  f.  N.  ; London,  Plate  VI,  4 ; Egger  Sale  XL, 
1912,  no.  732. 

London. 

Oxford  (Ashmolean). 

E.  T.  N.  (two  specimens)  ; Toronto,  Plate  VI,  5. 
(Nutn.  Zeitsclir.,  vol.  I,  1869,  p.  39,  no.  92).  TETRADRACHM. 

In  field,  wreath-bearing  niice  to  r.  Beneath  throne,  ~4/\- 
X LI  V . . . . 206  E.  T.  N. 

. 207  Amer.  Num.  Soc. 

XLV  ....  20(1  E.  T.  N.,  Plate  VI,  6 (obverse). 

XLVI 207  “ Plate  VI.  6 (reverse). 

(Muller,  nos.  198  and  200).  TETRADRACHM. 

In  field,  wreath-bearing  nike  to  r.  Beneath  throne,  AJ- 


XLI V 

. . . . 20S 

E.  T.  N.  : Gotha. 

200 

Egger  Sale,  XL,  191: 

210 

In  the  trade. 

. . . .211 

E.  T.  N.,  Plate  VI,  7 

>12 

“ 

212, 

L.  V.  Case. 

• 

2H 

L.  V.  Case. 

XLV 

215 

Boston,  Plate  VI.  8, 

110 

In  the  trade. 

XLVI 

>12, 

L.  V.  Case. 

36 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


XLVI  . 

. . 217 

E.  T.  N.,  Plate  VI,  9. 

. . 218 

Oxford  (Ashmolean). 

. . 210 

E.  T.  N. 

XL  VII  . 

. . 210 

“ Plate  VI,  10. 

. . 220 

. . 221 

Cambridge  ( Fitzwilliam). 

222 

Egger  Sale,  1912,  no.  697 

. . 223 

E.  T.  N. 

44  (Muller,  no.  215a).  BRONZE. 

Types  similar  to  no.  II. 

Obverse,  caduceus  in  front  of  face. 

Reverse,  caduceus  above  club. 

Berlin  ; Copenhagen. 


45  ( ).  BRONZE. 

Similar. 

Obverse,  caduceus  in  front  of  face. 

Reverse,  caduceus  above  club,  I below  bow. 

E.  T.  N.  (countermarked,  Triskelis),  Plate  VI,  11. 


4b  ( ).  BRONZE. 


Similar. 

Obverse,  CADUCEUS  in  front  of  face. 

Reverse,  caduceus  above  club,  star  beneath  quiver. 

E.  T.  N.  (two  specimens). 

Yale  Univ.  Coll.  (Star  takes  form  of  Aramaic  N). 


■SECOND  GROUT. 

Types. 

STATER. 


Head  of  Athene  to  r.  in  crested  Corin- 
thian helmet  adorned  with  serpent,  hair  in 
formal  curls. 

TETR  A DRACHM. 

Head  of  young  Herakles  of  advanced 
style  to  r.  Circle  of  dots. 


47  (M idler,  no.  198).  TETRAD  RAC 
In  held,  wreath-bearing  nike  to 
XLVIII  . . . .224  E.  T.  N. 

XL  IX  . . . . 225 

....  226 


AAEZANAPOY  (on  r.),  BASIAEQ5  (on 
1.).  Nike  advancing  to  1.  holds  wreath  in 
outstretched  r.  and  victory-adorned  sty lis 
in  l. 

BA5IAEQS  (above),  AAEEANAPOY  (on 
r.).  Zeus  of  advanced  style  seated  to  1., 
legs  parallel  and  feet  resting  on  footstool, 
holds  eagle  in  outstretched  r.  and  sceptre 
in  1. 

HM. 

r.  Beneath  throne,  /f\j  j ©. 


Plate  VI,  12. 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


XLIX 

....  227 

E.  T.  N.  ; Egger  Sale,  1912,  no.  697. 

....  228 

Oxford  (Ashmolean). 

L 

....  227 

E.  T.  N. 

221) 

“ Plate  VI,  13. 

. . . . 230 

Toronto. 

LI 

....  231 

E.  T.  N.,  Plate  VI,  14. 

....  23,2 

“ ; another  in  the  trade. 

LIII 

....  232 

V.  Hammer,  Plate  VII,  1. 

LIV 

....  233 

F.  M.  Endicott,  Plate  VII,  2. 

....  m 

Oxford  (Ashmolean). 

....  235 

In  the  trade. 

LV 

....  236 
....  237 

I11  the  trade,  Plate  VII,  3. 
Cambridge  (Leake  Coll.). 

....  238 

Egger  Sale,  1912,  no.  604. 

LVI 

....  239 

F.  M.  Endicott,  Plate  VII,  4. 

....  240 

Toronto. 

. ...  241 

E.  T.  N. 

48  (Nuin. 

Zeitschr  , vol.  I, 

1869,  p.  34,  no.  30).  STATER. 

In  front  of  Nike,  § 

L 

. ...  A 

Berlin  ; London,  Plate  VII,  5 ; Petrograd  ; Yakoun- 

tchikoff ; Egger  Sale,  1912,  no.  378. 

49  (Num. 

Zeitschr.,  vol.  I, 

1869,  p.  38,  no.  91).  TETRADRACHM. 

In  field,  wreath-bear 

ing  niice  to  r.  Beneath  throne,  Al  | §. 

L 

a /a 

. « • * r-Jyil-  /V 

In  the  trade. 

LI  I 

.... 

E.  T.  N.,  Plate  VII,  6. 

. ...  244 

U 

LVI  I 

^ 

F.  M.  Endicott,  Plate  VII,  7. 

LVI  1 1 

.... 

F.  M.  Endicott,  Plate  VII,  8 ; in  the  trade. 

. . . . 24/ 

6)  / V 

E.  T.  N.  ; London. 

LIX 

. 

.... 

Oxford  (Ashmolean). 

AW 

E.  T.  N.,  Plate  VII,  9. 

THIRD  GROUP. 

STATER. 

Types. 

Head  of  Athene  to  r.,  as  before.  Formal  Inscription  and  types  same  as  on  pre- 

curls  on  dies 

j,  M,  < ),  P,  flowing  locks  on  ceding  stater,  no.  48- 

dies  N and  Q 

TETRADRACHM. 

Head  of  young  Herakles  as  before.  On  Inscription  and  types  as  on  preceding 

earliest  dies 

a circle  of  dots, 

later  dies  tetrad rach ms.  The  Zeus  throne  hence- 

plain. 

forth  has  legs  of  special  type.  The  entire 
reverse  design  is  surrounded  by  plain  circle. 

38 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


BRONZE. 

Head  of  young  Herakles. 


AAEzANAPOY  between  club  and  bow 
in  quiver. 


50 


(Muller,  no.  213).  STATER. 

On  extreme  left,  caduceus.  In  front  of  Nike,  57  | 5- 


L . . 

. . 

Paris,  Plate  VII,  10. 

M . . 

. V 

Berlin,  Plate  VII,  11  (obv.)  ; Petrograd,  Plate  VII, 
1 2 (rev.). 

* * f 

Hague,  Plate  VII,  13. 

N . . 

. 0 

London,  Plate  VII,  14  ; Petrograd. 

51 


52 


53 


54 


(Muller,  no.  204).  TETRADRACHM. 

In  field,  wreath-hearing  nike  and  caduceus. 

Beneath  throne,  57-  I'1  exergue,  §. 

LX  ....  25 / Paris,  Plate  VII,  15  ; another  in  the  trade. 

.'  . . 252  In  the  trade. 

(Muller,  no.  214).  STATER. 

On  obverse,  © . 

On  reverse,  on  extreme  left,  caduceus.  In  front  of  Nike,  E7  | © . 


0 . 

. . . 7 r45 

London,  Plate  VII,  16 

• p 

Paris  ; Petrograd. 

. . . a 

Petrograd. 

P . 

. a 

E.  T.  N,  Plate  VII,  IT 

Q • 

. T 

London,  Plate  VII,  18 

( Miiller, 

no.  zoi).  TETRADRACHM. 

In  field, 

WREATH-HEARING  NIKE  to  r.,  CADUCEUS. 

Beneath  throne,  57  . In 

exergue,  ©. 

Till  . 

. . . 253 

Oxford  (Ashmolean). 

. . . 254 

E.  T.  N. 

. . . 255vs 

“ Plate  VIII,  1. 

LIV  . 

. . . 255 

“ Plate  VIII,  2. 

LVI  . 

. . . 255 

“ Plate  VIII,  3. 

( )• 

TETRADRACHM. 

In  field, 

WREATH-BEARING  NIKE  to  l-.,  CADUCEUS. 

Beneath  throne  E7  1 0 . 

LXI  . 

. 25)", 

E.  T.  N. 

. . . 258 

“ Plate  VIII,  4. 

. . . 25!> 

U 

LXII  . 

. . . 25!  > 

U 

. . . 250 

Toronto. 

. . . 251 

E.  T.  N. 

45  On  tliis  reverse  die  the  © lias  been  re-engraved  over  the  §. 

46  On  reverse  die  255  the  © is  placed  above  the  exergual  line  and  alongside  of  the  monogram. 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


39 


55 


LX  1 1 


( )• 


. 262  E.  T.  N. 

. 263  In  the  trade. 


. 26 If  Egger  Sale  XL,  1912,  no.  098,  Plate  VIII, 
. 265  Cambridge  (Leake  Coll.). 

. . . 266  E.  T.  N. 

TETRADRACHM. 


Obverse  die  has  B beneath  neck. 
Reverse  same  as  above. 


LX  1 1 1 ....  267  Oxford  (Ashmolean)  Plate  VIII,  6. 


5. 


FOURTH  GROUP. 

56  (Muller,  no.  203).  TETRADRACHM. 

In  field,  WREATH-BEARING  NIKE  to  r.,  CADUCEUS,  and  B. 
Beneath  throne,  © 

LIII  . . . .268  London,  Plate  VIII,  7. 

LXI V . . . .269  E.  T.  N.,  Plate  VIII,  8. 

57  ( ).  TETRADRACHM. 

< diverse  die  has  B beneath  neck. 

Reverse  same  as  no.  56- 


.XIII  . . . . 270 

F.  M.  Endicott,  Plate  VIII,  9. 

....  277 

E.  T.  N. 

272 

R.  Storrs  ; E.  T.  N. 

....  273 

E.  T.  N. 

■ . . . 27 Jf 

Cambridge  (Fitz william)  ; E. 

( ).  TETRADRACHM. 

In  field,  WREATH-BEARING  NIKE  to  1'.,  CADUOEUS,  and  © 

Beneath  throne,  ©. 

LIII  . . . . 275 

L.  V.  Case,  Plate  VIII,  10. 

LXV  . . . . 276 

E.  T.  N.,  Plate  VIII,  1 1. 

LX VI  ....  277  Hirscli  Sale  XVI,  1906,  no.  379  (PI.  xii). 
5^  ( ).  TETRADRACHM. 

In  field,  WREATH-BEARING  NIKE  to  1\,  CADUOEUS,  and  §. 

Beneath  throne,  ©• 


LXVI  . . 

. . 278 

E.  T.  N. ; Oxford  (Ashmolean),  Plate  VIII,  12. 

. . 279  . 

“ ; Egger  Sale  XL,  1912,  no.  097. 

LXVII  . . 

. . 279 

U 

. . 280 

“ Plate  VIII,  13. 

(XVI I A47  . . 

. . 281 

“ (ex  Oertel  Sale,  1913,  no.  100),  Plate  VIII, 

14. 

. . 282 

it. 

47  This  dip  is  the  preceding  die  (I, XVII)  re-engraved. 


40 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


60  (Miiller,  no.  212).  BRONZE. 

Obverse,  caduceus  in  front  of  face. 

Reverse,  caduceus  above,  p below. 

61  (Muller,  no.  215).  BRONZE. 

Obverse,  caduceus  in  front  of  face. 

Reverse,  caduceus  and  0 above,  0 below. 

Vienna,  Plate  VII,  19  ; E.  T.  N. 


The  first  group  of  the  present  series  is  closely  bound  by  style,  in- 
scription, and  the  magistrate  © with  the  fourth  and  last  group  of  the 
preceding  series,  as  the  reader  can  determine  for  himself  by  comparing 
nos.  1 to  10  inclusive  on  Plate  VI.  That  the  present  series  of  coins 
must  belong  to  the  same  mint  as  Series  I and  II  is  therefore  certain. 
At- lirst  the  magistrate  lAP  replaces  the  plow  of  the  previous  series,  hut 
is  himself  soon  superseded  by  a magistrate  whose  symbol  was  a wreath - 
bearing  nike.  The  subordinate  officials  for  the  first  group  of  Series  III 
are  ©,  T\,  and  -41  which  soon  assumes  the  form  M.  The  accompany- 
ing bronze  coins  (nos.  44  and  45)  bear  none  of  these  symbols  or  mono- 
grams but  are  provided  on  both  obverse  and  reverse  with  the  caduceus 
symbol.  This  same  symbol  occurs  on  all  the  gold,  silver,  and  bronze 
coins  of  the  succeeding  third  and  fourth  groups,  but  the  more  charac- 
teristically Cilician  style  of  nos.  44  and  45  place  them  in  the  first  group, 
as  can  be  seen  by  the  illustration  of  one  specimen  on  Plate  VI. 

The  second  group  of  the  present  series  is  distinguished  by  the  fact 
that  henceforth  the  purely  Cilician  character  of  the  art  employed  gives 
way  to  an  art  more  consistent  with  the  canons  of  pure  Greek  style. 
Some  of  the  dies  are  very  fine  productions  and  well  worthy  of  the  best- 
traditions  of  Greek  art.  I would  call  particular  attention  to  Plate  VII, 
nos.  3,  4 and  8,  Plate  VIII,  nos.  1 and  3.  With  this  group  the  coinage 
in  gold  recommences.  Instead  of  being  issued,  as  heretofore,  under 
the  supervision  of  special  magistrates  whose  symbols  do  not  occur  on 
the  accompanying  silver  coins,  henceforth  it  is  evident  that  the  same 
magistrates  were  now  employed  to  supervise  the  coinage  of  all  three 
metals. 

For  the  third  and  fourth  groups  the  system  of  control  has  become 
somewhat  more  complicated.  Each  tetradrachm  is  signed  by  three 
constant  magistrates,  nike,  caduceus  and  E7  . In  addition  three  sub- 
ordinates B,  O,  and  § alternate  on  the  dies.  Besides  this,  0 signs 
himself  on  an  obverse  die  of  the  gold  coinage,  B on  an  obverse  die 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


41 


(LXIII)  of  the  tetradrachms.  These  two  magistrates  are  very  prob- 
ably the  same  we  have  met  with  before  in  previous  series. 

Under  the  heading  Series  III  the  material  at  present  available  for 
study  is  less  than  for  Series  I and  II.  The  result  is  that  to  the  twenty - 
seven  known  obverse  dies  we  have  at  present  but  eighty -one  reverse 
dies  — or  exactly  the  ratio  1 :3.  Experience  has  shown  that  this  ratio 
is  probably  far  too  small  with  regards  to  the  original  number  of  reverse 
dies  cut.  Future  finds  and  the  unstudied  public  and  private  collections 
of  Europe  will  undoubtedly  more  than  double  their  number.  To  Series 
I with  its  twenty -seven  obverse  dies  we  have  assigned  a period  of  six 
years  333-327  B.  C.,  to  Series  II  with  its  fourteen  obverse  dies  we  sug- 
gested a period  of  three  years  or  327-324,  therefore,  to  Series  111  with 
its  twenty-seven  dies  (really  only  twenty-six  for  one  die  was  recut  and 
used  again)  we  may  well  assign  the  period  324-319  B.  C.  The  adop- 
tion of  the  year  319  B.  C.,  as  the  final  year  in  which  the  coins  of  Series 
III  could  have  been  issued,  is  corroborated  by  the  great  hoard  of  Alex- 
ander tetradrachms  found  at  Demanhur,  Egypt.  This  hoard  con- 
tained specimens  of  all  the  tetradrachms  we  have  incorporated  in  the 
present  study,  but  not  a single  one  of  the  later  Tarsiote  issues.  All 
the  specimens  of  Series  III  from  this  find  were  in  extremely  fine  or 
brilliant  condition  showing  that  they  must  have  been  struck  but  a short 
time  previous  to  the  hoard’s  burial.  As  shown  in  my  work  on  the 
Alexander  coinages  of  Sidon  and  Ake  the  hoard  in  question  could  not 
have  been  buried  previous  to  the  year  319/318  B.  C.,  while  internal 
evidence  would  seem  to  show  that  it  was  actually  interred  about  318/ 
317  B.  C.  Thus  it  is  most  likely  that  the  five  years  immediately  pre- 
ceding the  burial  saw  the  issuing  of  our  tetradrachms  of  Series  III.  It 
would  thus  seem  evident  that  the  coins  of  Series  III  extended  down  to 
at  least  about  320/319  B.  C.  By  incorporating  them  we  have  passed 
by  some  four  years  the  limits  set  for  the  present  study.  The  coins  of 
Series  HI,  however,  as  a whole  are  so  closely  bound  together  by  style 
and  magistrates,  forming  a single  issue  of  several  years’  duration,  that  it 
would  have  been  inadvisable  to  separate  them.  It  is  probable  that  the 
“ First  Group  ” appeared  while  Alexander  was  still  alive,  the  remain- 
ing three  groups  during  the  troubled  times  that  followed  his  death. 


42 


Tar, sos  Under  Alexander 


Issue  of  Persic  Staters. 


SERIES  II. 


Fig.  15 

Baal-Tars,  hiination  over  1.  arm  and 
crossed  legs,  seated  to  1.  He  rests  r.  arm 
on  sceptre.  In  field  before  him,  ear  of 
wheat  and  hunch  of  grapes.  Beneath 
throne  varying  mintmarks.  Circle  of  dots. 


Bust  of  Athene  in  triple-crested  Attic 
helmet,  nearly  facing,  inclined  to  1.,  wears 
ear-rings  and  necklace.  In  field  some- 
times letters  and  symbols.  Border  of  dots. 


Fig.  17  Fig.  18 

first  GROUP  (B  on  right  of  Baal-Tars). 


g.  Beneath  throne,  M.  Plain. 

To  light  of  Baal-Tars,  B. 

London,  no.  69  (PI.  xxxi,  10);  Paris,  no.  249. 

h.  Beneath  throne,  I.  Plain. 

To  right  of  Baal-Tars,  B. 

London,  no.  67  (PL  xxxi,  8)  fig.  15  ; Hague  ; Berlin  ; Ratto,  Sale  of  1912,  no. 
1063  (formerly  O’Hagan  Coll.,  Sotheby,  1908,  no.  628). 

i.  Beneath  throne,  §.  Plain. 

To  right  of  Baal-Tars,  B. 

London,  no.  71  (PI  xxxi,  12);  Ratto,  Sale  of  1912,  no.  1064  (formerly  Hirsch 
Sale  XXV,  1909,  no.  2771). 


second  group  (Plain  obverse). 

j.  Beneath  throne,  M.  Plain. 

E.  T.  N.  ; Paris  ; Berlin. 

k.  Beneath  throne,  M.  Bunch  of  grapes  and  T. 

Paris,  nos.  247  ( PI.  vi,  2)  and  248. 

l.  Beneath  throne,  §.  Plain. 

London,  no.  70  (PI.  xxxi,  11);  Paris,  no.  250  : Sotheby,  Cumberland-Clark  Sale, 
1914,  no.  252  (formerly  Merzbacher,  Nov.,  1909,  no.  3159). 


Tars  os  Under  Alexander 


43 


id.  Beneath  throne,  Corinthian  helmet  on  left. 

Paris,  no.  251  (PI.  vi,  3),  fig.  16. 

n.  Beneath  throne,  I.  I — <■. 

Paris,  no.  246. 

o.  Beneath  throne,  |.  Corinthian  helmet,  hunch  of  grapes  and  T- 

London,  no.  68  (PI.  xxxi,  9). 

third  group  (B  and  Helmet  on  obverse). 

p.  Beneath  throne,  §.  I §. 

To  right  of  Baal-Tars,  B and  Corinthian  helmet. 

London,  no.  72  (PI.  xxxi,  13)  fig.  17  ; Carfrae  Sale,  PI.  x,  no.  1. 

q.  Beneath  throne,  T-  Plain. 

To  right  of  Baal-Tars,  B and  Corinthian  helmet. 

London,  no.  75. 

fourth  group  (B  and  Ivy  Leaf). 

r.  Beneath  throne,  T.  Plain. 

To  right  of  Baal-Tars,  B and  Ivy  Leaf. 

London,  no.  77  (PI.  xxxii,  3);  Paris,  nos.  253,  254  (PI.  vi,  4)  and  255;  Berlin  : 
Vienna. 

s.  Beneath  throne,  T-  Ivy  Leaf. 

To  right  of  Baal-Tars,  B and  Ivy  Leaf. 

London,  no.  73  (PI.  xxxi,  14),  fig.  18. 

t.  Beneath  throne,  T-  Corinthian  Helmet. 

To  right  of  Baal-Tars,  B and  Ivy  Leaf 

London,  no.  78  ; Berlin. 

fifth  group  (Ivy  Leaf  on  Obverse). 

u.  Beneath  throne,  T.  Plain. 

To  right  of  Baal-Tars,  Ivy  Leaf. 

E.  T.  N.  ; London,  no.  74  (PI.  xxxii,  1 ) ; Munich. 

v.  Beneath  throne,  T-  Bunch  of  Grapes,  T. 

To  right  of  Baal-Tars,  Ivy  Leaf. 

London,  no.  76  (PI.  xxxii,  2);  Naples. 

w.  Beneath  throne,  T-  Ivy  Leaf. 

To  right  of  Baal-Tars.  Ivy  Leaf. 

Vienna. 

PERSIC  OBOE. 

Head  of  Athene  facing  as  on  preceding  Shield  of  so-called  Boeotian  shape;  on 
staters.  it,  thunderbolt.  In  Held,  star. 

x.  London,  no.  79  (PI.  xxxii,  4). 


44 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


Tli is  large  and  somewhat  complicated  series  of  Persic  staters  has 
long48  been  recognized  as  having  been  struck  subsequently  to  the  incor- 
poration of  Cilicia  into  Alexander’s  empire.  Like  the  previous  series 
described  above  on  page  84  this  too  was  evidently  a municipal  issue 
struck  in  the  central  mint  at  Tarsos  for  the  four  cities  of  Issos,  Mallos, 
Soloi  and  Tarsos.  The  initial  letters  of  these  cities  appear  singly  on 
the  obverses  beneath  the  throne  of  Baal,  while,  at  times,  the  additional 
mint  marks  T and  i§  occur  on  the  reverses.  The  entire  series  has  so 
often  been  discussed  at  length  by  such  competent  scholars  as  M.  Six, 
Mr.  G.  F.  Hill  , and  M.  Babelon,  that  it  is  quite  unnecessary  to  treat 
of  it  again  in  detail  except  in  so  far  as  new  light  may  have  been  thrown 
upon  it  by  our  study  of  the  contemporaneous  issues  of  Alexander  at 
Tarsos. 

It  is  to  be  observed  that,  according  to  the  letters  they  bear,  the 
First  and  Second  Groups  of  these  staters  were  struck  exclusively  for  the 
three  municipalities  of  Mallos,  Soloi  and  Issos.  The  striking  itself, 
however,  took  place  at  Tarsos.  The  identity  in  style  and  technique 
between  these  two  groups  and  the  Fourth  and  Fifth  Groups  is  very 
evident.  But  the  latter  can  only  have  been  struck  in  Tarsos  as  their 
coins  are  marked  exclusively  with  T.  Furthermore,  staters  k and  o 
have  reverses  struck  from  dies  intended  for  the  Fifth  Group  which  bear 
the  letter  T.  That  the  dies  were  all  really  cut  in  one  mint  would  seem 
to  be  further  proved  by  the  fact  that  the  obverses  of  the  two  coins  illus- 
trated as  nos.  9 and  11  on  Plate  xxxi  of  the  British  Museum  Catalogue 
appear  to  be  identical.  In  this  case  I,  the  initial  letter  of  Issos,  has 
been  re-engraved  over  a preceding  §,  the  initial  of  Soloi,  but  traces  of 
the  erased  sigma  are  still  plainly  visible.  It  also  appears  likely  that  in 
the  case  of  no.  8 of  Plate  xxxi  of  the  same  catalogue  and  no.  1,  Plate 
vi  of  the  Paris  catalogue  the  obverse  dies  have  likewise  been  altered. 
Here  the  letter  I has  been  re -engraved  over  a preceding  T,  traces  of  the 
cross  bar  of  the  tan  being  still  visible. 

The  Fourth  and  Fifth  Groups,  were,  as  stated  above,  struck  exclu- 
sively for  Tarsos,  as  their  coins  in  no  instance  bear  any  other  letter 
than  T.  Furthermore,  these  are  the  only  varieties  which  bear  the  ivy 
leaf  symbol,  and  the  ivy  appears  to  have  been  held  in  peculiar  veneration 
at  Tarsos.411  As  a symbol  the  bunch  of  grapes  seems  also  to  be  closely 

48  First  suggested  by  M.  Babelon,  “ Les  Perses  achdmGndes,”  Paris,  1893,  p.  xlvi. 

49  As  recently  pointed  out  to  me  by  Prof.  Frothingham,  whose  work  on  this  subject  is  ex- 
pected to  appear  shortly.  The  entire  subject  was  discussed  by  him  at  the  meeting  of  the  Arch- 
aeological Institute  of  America  held  Dec.  27-29,  1917. 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


45 


associated  with  our  mint  and  occurs  on  these  Persic  staters  always  ac- 
companied by  the  letter  T.  In  passing  it  should  he  noted  that  these 
same  two  symbols  appear  on  the  Alexander  tetradrachms  nos.  32  to  30 
of  Series  II. 

Another  interesting  point  brought  out  by  these  staters  is  the  ap- 
parent fact  that  their  issue  was  supervised  by  our  old  friend  B who  has 
been  found  so  active,  not  only  on  the  first  re-issue  of  the  Persic  stater 
but  also  on  many  of  the  Alexander  issues  we  have  here  brought  together 
and  assigned  to  Tarsos. 

The  most  important  thing  for  us  to  determine  at  present  is  the  exact 
date  at  which  this  second  re-issue  of  the  Persic  stater  took  place.  Here 
unfortunately  we  find  the  opinions  of  students  of  the  subject  consider- 
ably at  variance.  The  Due  de  Luynes  in  his  great  work  on  the  coinage 
of  the  Persian  satraps  (JEssai  sur  la  Numismatique  ties  Satrapies  et  de  la 
Phenicie  sous  les  Rois  aehaemenides ) would  date  these  handsome  coins 
with  the  Athene  bust  anterieur  a la  conquete  d’ Alexandre  11  (p.  (14) ; 
J.  P.  Six  (Num.  Chron.,  3rd  Series,  vol.  IV,  page  127)  places  them  be- 
tween 373  and  351  B.  C.  ; M.  Babelon  (Les  Perses  aehemenides , nos. 
245-255)  gives  them  to  Mazaios  who  ruled  in  Cilicia  from  361  to  333 
B.  C.,  but  also  suggests  (toe.  cit .,  page  xlvi)  that  they  may  have  been 
issued  by  Balakros,  Satrap  of  Cilicia  under  Alexander  ; more  recently 
M.  Babelon  (Traite  II2,  page  461  ft)  definitely  assigns  them  to  the  period 
after  the  conquest  of  Cilicia  by  Alexander  ; while,  finally,  Mr.  Hill  in 
the  British  Museum  Catalogue  of  the  coins  of  Cilicia  reverts  to  the  ear- 
lier opinion  and  assigns  them  to  the  1 Period  of  Mazaios.’ 

In  view  of  what  we  have  learned  by  our  study  of  the  first  re-issue 
of  the  Persic  stater  and  of  the  accompanying  Alexander  tetradrachms, 
I think  we  have  every  reason  to  agree  with  M.  Babelon’s  final  opinion 
as  expressed  in  the  second  volume  of  his  Traite,  namely  that  these 
Athene  staters  must  have  been  struck  subsequently  to  the  coming  of 
the  Greeks  and  the  incorporation  of  Cilicia  into  Alexander’s  empire. 
Every  criterion  of  style  and  technique  would  also  point  to  their  having 
been  issued  later  than  the  staters  a to  e (pages  84  and  85) , a fact  recog- 
nized by  both  Mr.  Hill  and  M.  Babelon.  Therefore  we  arrive  at  the 
definite  conclusion  that  they  could  not  have  been  struck  earlier  than 
328  or  327  B.  C.,  which  period  we  have  every  reason  to  believe  saw  the 
appearance  of  the  first  re-issue  of  the  Persic  stater.  But  when  we 
would  determine  the  exact  year  in  which  the  second  re-issue  appeared 
we  immediately  find  ourselves  in  difficulties.  Whereas  the  style  of 


46 


Tarsos  Under  Alexander 


nos.  a to  e definitely  and  clearly  associate  their  appearance  with  certain 
contemporary  Alexander  tetradrachms  (the  last  coins  of  our  Series  I 
and  the  first  coins  of  our  Series  II),  in  other  words  in  and  around  the 
years  828  and  327  B.  C.,  we  are  not  so  aided  by  the  style  of  nos.  g to  w 
now  under  discussion.  The  presence  on  the  latter  of  the  symbols 
bunch  of  grapes  and  ivy  leaf  would  seem  indeed  to  associate  these 
pieces  very  closely  with  the  Alexander  tetradrachms  nos.  32-36.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  details  of  the  Baal  figure  — criteria  so  useful  to  us 
in  determining  the  approximate  date  of  the  first  re-issue — in  the  pres- 
ent case  do  not  at  all  correspond  with  those  of  the  Zeus  figure  on  the 
tetradrachms  (nos.  32-36)  just  mentioned.  Our  Baal  figure  now  has 
loose,  flowing  locks  instead  of  stiff  ringlets,  his  feet  are  crossed  instead 
of  being  placed  parallel  to  each  other  and  they  do  not  rest  upon  a foot- 
stool, while  the  details  of  the  throne  are  entirely  different.  In  fact, 
almost  the  only  point  of  resemblance  is  to  be  found  in  the  drapery 
whose  folds  are  similarly  represented  by  a succession  of  double  lines. 

The  die  cutter  of  the  Alexander  coins  32-36  could  not  possibly  have 
been  the  die  cutter  of  the  Athene  staters,  the  latter  being  infinitely 
the  better  artist  of  the  two.  Never-the-less  the  letters  M,  I,  T,  and 
the  magistrate’s  initial  B,  would  indeed  seem  to  associate  these  staters 
with  the  first  re-issue,  and,  until  new  evidence  to  the  contrary  appears, 
the  writer  would  consider  them  as  having  followed  immediately  upon  the 
first  re-issue.  Now  we  have  seen  that  the  first  re-issue  occurred  at  the 
time  when  Series  I of  the  Alexander  tetradrachms  gave  way  to  Series 
II.  We  have  also  noticed  that  the  important  magistrate  B signed  only 
a very  few  coins  of  this  Series  II  and  then  disappears  entirely  from  the 
Alexander  coinage  until  we  come  to  Series  III,  Group  IV,  when  his 
familiar  initial  appears  once  more  on  both  the  gold  and  silver  coins. 
The  suggestion  certainly  lies  to  hand  that  during  this  interval  he  was 
actually  supervising  the  second  re-issue  of  the  Persic  staters  where  his 
initial  frequently  occurs.  The  appearance  of  the  two  symbols  bunch 
of  grapes  and  ivy  leaf  on  both  the  Persic  staters  and  on  certain  of 
the  Alexander  tetradrachms  (nos.  32-36)  would  favor  this  supposition. 
The  difference  in  style  between  these  two  categories  of  coin  must  then 
be  accounted  for  by  assuming  that  their  dies  were  produced  by  differ- 
ent artists,  a far  from  difficult  assumption.  Certainly  more  than  one 
artist  must  have  been  working  in  the  Tarsos  mint  at  this  time.  At  a 
very  slightly  later  period,  for  instance,  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  that 
one  and  the  same  artist  could  have  produced  the  absolutely  contempo- 


Tarsos  U^der  Alexander 


47 


raneous  reverse  dies  of  nos.  2 and  3,  Plate  VII,  or  the  similarly  con- 
temporaneous obverse  and  reverse  dies  of  nos.  b and  7 on  the  same 
plate. 

If  this  suggestion  be  found  unsuitable,  the  only  other  possible  so- 
lution of  the  difficulty  would  be  to  suppose  that  the  second  re-issue  of 
the  Persic  stater  took  place  either  contemporaneously  with  the  appear- 
ance of  the  Fourth  Group  of  Series  III  or  immediately  following. 
Indeed  throughout  that  Series  a steady  improvement  of  style  in  the 
Alexander  series  is  very  noticeable  until  towards  the  end,  it  much  more 
nearly  approaches  that  found  on  our  staters.  Especially  in  the  struc- 
tural details  of  their  legs  the  Baal  throne  and  the  Zeus  throne  are  now 
no  longer  so  dissimilar.  Furthermore,  the  B no  longer  would  appear 
on  the  Persic  staters  alone  but  is  once  more  in  evidence  on  the  Alex- 
ander tetradrachms . 

The  difficulties  of  finally  determining  the  exact  date  of  the  second 
re-issue  are  apparent  and  the  writer  reluctantly  leaves  the  inquiry  in 
this  somewhat  unsatisfactory  state  until  further  material  becomes  avail- 
able. This  much,  however,  has  been  gained,  namely  that  we  are  certain 
that  the  second  re-issue  must  have  taken  place  not  earlier  than  328-327 
B.  C.,  or  much  later  than  320-319  B.  C.,  and  that  it  was  neither  a 
satrapal  nor  an  autonomous  issue,  but,  like  the  first  re-issue,  a muni- 
cipal undertaking  issued  at  the  Tarsos  mint  for  the  four  principal  cities 
of  eastern  Cilicia. 

With  these  coins  our  studies  of  the  varied  and  interesting  curren- 
cies put  forth  by  the  evidently  very  important  mint  existing  at  Tarsos 
in  the  lifetime  of  Alexander  the  Great,  come  to  an  end.  Although 
after  his  death  further  series  of  his  coins  continued  to  appear — one  or 
two  of  which  we  have  indeed  incorporated  in  this  article  — the  writer 
has  not  deemed  it  advisable  to  carry  on  the  study  beyond  this  point. 
A hat  was  intended  for  only  a short  paper  has  already  grown  to  un- 
expected length  while  insufficient  material  is  as  yet  available  to  him  for 
the  careful  study  of  the  later  issues.  With  the  end  of  the  Great  War 
at  hand  it  may  soon  become  possible  to  remedy  this  lack,  and  until 
then  it  would  certainly  be  unwise  to  attempt  to  base  definite  conclu- 
sions on  a study  of  inadequate  material. 


Note.  By  an  inadvertance  the  two  coins  illustrated  in  fig.  3,  page  HI, 
have  become  interchanged.  The  one  on  the  left  should  have  been  assigned 
to  Ake,  the  one  on  the  right  to  Tarsos. 


Plate  I 


Amer.  Jour.  Numismatics,  Vol.  LII 

18  , 


First  Group,  “ Officina  ” A 


First  Group,  “ Officiua”  B 


Second  Group,  “ 


PERSIAN  SATRAPAL  ISSUES  nos.  1-5;  ALEXANDER  ISSUES,  SERIES  I,  nos.  6-21. 


Plate  II 


Second  Group,  “ Officina  ” A 


o 


Second  Group,  “ Officina  ” B 


' ' i t 


Third  ( 


Officina 


SERIES  I (continued). 


Plate  III 


Third  Group,  “Officina”  A (continued). 


Third  Group,  “ Officina  ” 13 


SERIES  I 


Plate  IV 


■V*  .*>'■ 


SERIES  II,  First  Group 


Plate  V 


First  Group  (continued). 


SERIES  II  (continued) 


Plate  VI 


SERIES  II,  Third  Group, 


nos. 


1-3:  SERIES  III,  First  Group,  nos.  4-11  ; SERIES  III,  Second  Group,  nos.  12-14 


Plate  VII 


SERIES  III,  Second  Group  (continued)  1-9;  Third  Group,  10-18;  Fourth  Group,  19. 


Plate  VIII 


SERIES  III,  Fourth  Group. 


THE 

ALEXANDRINE  COINAGE  OF  SINOPE 


BY 

EDWARD  T.  NEWELL 


PRICE,  TWO  DOLLARS  AND  FIFTY  CENTS 


THE  AMERICAN  NUMISMATIC  SOCIETY 
BROADWAY  AT  156th  STREET 
NEW  YORK 
191!) 


I 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  TEN  COPIES 
REPRINTED  FROM 

THE  AMERICAN  JOURNAL  OF  NUMISMATICS 


VOLUME  LII 


THE  ALEXANDRINE  COINAGE  OF  SINOPE 

By  EDWARD  T.  NEWELL 

Iii  the  third  century  B.  C.  one  of  the  districts  most  actively  engaged 
in  coining  money  of  the  Alexander  type  comprised  the  western  and 
southern  shores  of  the  Black  Sea.  Busy  commercial  centres  such  as 
Istrus,  Callatis,  Odessus,  Messembria,  Heraclea  Pontica,  and  others  of 
lesser  importance,  issued  large  quantities  of  that  evidently  popular  type 
of  coin.  It  should  not  be  very  surprising,  therefore,  to  learn  that  Sin- 
ope, the  wealthiest  and  most  important  of  all  the  seaports  on  the  south  - 
ern shore  of  the  Euxine,  also  struck  a prolific  series  of  these  coins  in 
both  gold  and  silver. 

It  is  unnecessary  here  to  dilate  upon  the  great  commercial  impor- 
tance of  Sinope  during  the  fourth  and  third  centuries  B.  C.  That  has 
been  brought  out  with  sufficient  clearness  by  Mr.  David  M.  Robinson 
in  his  interesting  and  valuable  work  “Ancient  Sinope,”  to  which  I 
would  refer  the  reader  for  specific  details.  Sinope,  with  her  splendid 
double  harbor,  the  finest  in  all  this  region,  the  terminus  of  transcontinen- 
tal caravan  routes  from  Persia  and  Mesopotamia,  and  with  her  fortunate 
situation  at  the  narrowest  portion  of  the  Black  Sea  (an  important  con- 
sideration to  ancient  navigators)  naturally  enjoyed  the  closest  commer- 
cial relations  not  only  with  all  the  aforementioned  cities  of  the  Euxine 
but  also  with  Byzantium,  Chalcedon,  Rhodes,  Delos,  Athens,  and 
southwards  to  Egypt.  Now  all  Black  Sea  cities,  together  with  Byzan- 
tium and  Chalcedon,  were  at  this  time  coining  heavily, — principally 
gold  staters  and  silver  tetradrachms  either  with  the  well  known  types 
of  Alexander  the  Great  or  with  the  later  but  little  less  popular  types  of 
Lysimachus.  It  is  therefore  strange  to  observe  that  numismatists  have 
been  quite  content  to  believe  that  Sinope,  one  of  the  wealthiest  and 
most  powerful  of  them  all,  struck  only  some  very  rare  tetradrachms 
and  didrachms  of  purely  local  types.  These  have  been  assigned  (Hist. 
Num.2  p.  508,  and  Rec.  Gen.  pp. 192-3)  to  the  end  of  the  third  century, 
that  is,  after  220  B.  C.  Likewise  these  same  authorities  have  assigned 
the  earlier  local  issues  of  the  Persian  drachm,  half  and  quarter  drachms 
to  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  (circa  322-306  B.  C.) , and  the  succeed- 
ing issue  of  two  small  denominations  to  306-290  B.  C.  Thus  there  is 
left  in  the  Sinopean  coinage  a gap  of  some  fifty  years,  either  entirely 


The  Alexandrine  Coinage  oe  Sinope 


unfilled  or  only  very  inadequately  provided  tor  if  we  should  assume 
that  the  dates  given  by  such  experienced  numismatists  as  Head  and  M. 
Babelon  are  incorrect  and  that  these  autonomous  coinages  were  really 
of  longer  duration.  We  may  not  take  such  liberties,  however,  because 
their  assignments  are  based  on  the  incontrovertible  evidences  of  style 
against  which  mere  assumptions  are  worthless.  In  other  words,  after 
the  first  decade  of  the  third  century  B.  C.  down  until  towards  the  last 
quarter  of  that  century  Sinope  does  not  seem  to  have  struck  any  coins 
of  local  types.  As  Sinope  would  have  found  it  very  difficult  and  also 
unprofitable  at  this  time  to  have  been  without  any  coinage  of  her  own, 
we  may  feel  sure  that  she  followed  the  lead  of  the  cities  with  whom  she 
was  then  trading  and  coined  extensively  on  the  Alexander  type.  In 
corroboration  of  this  suggestion  we  find  at  our  disposal  a large  series  of 
staters,  tetradrachms  and  drachms  bearing  the  name  and  ty])es  of  the 
long  dead  Alexander,  and  having  also  special  symbols  and  letters  which 
can  only  be  interpreted  as  belonging  to  the  Sinopean  mint.  Had  it  not 
been  for  the  unfortunate  fact  that  L.  Muller,  in  his  monumental  work 
on  the  coinages  of  Alexander  the  Great,1  has  assigned  these  particular 
varieties  on  insufficient  and  even  impossible  grounds  to  Sidon,  the  per- 
fectly evident  fact  that  they  must,  instead,  belong  to  Sinope  would  long 
ago  have  been  apparent. 

Before  discussing  and  explaining  the  reasons  why  Muller’s  attri- 
bution, in  the  present  case,  must  be  discarded  in  favor  of  a Sinopean 
origin  for  the  coins,  a catalogue  of  the  known  varieties,  as  complete  as 
present  circumstances  will  allow,  is  necessary.  The  references  and 
numbers  are  to  Mr.  G.  P.  Hill’s  article  in  Nomisma , IV,  1909,  “Notes 
on  the  Alexandrine  Coinage  of  Phoenicia.” 

FIRST  SERIES 

1 STATER. 

Head  of  Athene  to  r.  with  necklace  and  AAEZANAPOY  on  r.  Winged  Nike 
triple  crested,  snake  adorned,  Corinthian  standing  to  1.,  holds  wreath  in  outstretch- 
helmet.  ’ ed  r.  and  stylis  in  1.  In  1.  field,  aplustre. 

Beneath,  H- 

Petrograd,  two  specimens  from  same  obverse  die  but  different  reverse  dies. 

Plate  I. 

2 STATER. 

Similar  head.  Similar  type  and  inscription.  In  1.  held, 

A p lustre.  Beneath,  §1  and  §A. 

Petrograd,  three  specimens,  two  of  which  are  from  identical  obverse  and  reverse 
dies.  Plate  I. 

1 L.  Muller,  “ Numismatique  d’ Alexandre  le  grand,”  Copenhagen,  1855. 


The  Alexandrine  Coinage  of  Sinope 


3 


3  DRACHM. 

Youthful  head  of  Heracles  to  r.  in  lion’s  BASIAEQS  on  1.  AAEZANAPOY  on  r. 
skin.  Zeus  enthroned  to  1.,  holds  eagle  in  out- 

stretched r.  and  sceptre  in  1.  Beneath 
throne,  §|.  In  exergue,  §A. 

Newell  Coll.,  Plate  I. 


SECOND  SERIES 


Gko 

4 STATER. 

Helmeted  head  of  Athene  to  r.  as  on 

no.  1. 

Yakountchikoff  Coll.,  Plate  I. 

5 STATER. 

Similar. 

Dresden,  Plate  I. 

6 STATER. 

Similar. 

Petrograd  (three  specimens  struck  fn 
Plate  1 , 6a  and  6b. 


e A 

AAEEANAPOY  on  r.  Winged  Nike  as 
on  no.  1.  In  1.  field,  [Aj  [ STAR  | | §|. 

Behind  Nike,  |^f. 


Similar.  In  1.  field,  star  | [2J  | §|. 
Behind  Nike,  ZtY 

Similar.  In  1.  field,  star  J §|.  Be- 
hind Nike,  (J). 

i one  obverse  die  and  two  reverse  dies), 


Group  B 

7 STATER  (Hill  no.  38). 

Similar,  but  of  later  style.  Similar.  Stylis,  which  Nike  holds,  hence- 

forth has  form  53.  Beneath  r.  hand,  star. 
In  front,  rfr  | §1-  B ehind,  | E- 

Turin,  Plate  I . 

8 STATER  (Hill  no.  39). 

Similar.  Similar.  In  front,  rfc  | §1-  Behind, 

N I E. 

London  (from  same  obverse  die  as  preceding),  Plate  I. 

9 STATER  (Hill  no.  40). 

Similar.  Similar.  In  front,  eft  | §1.  Behind, 

Ki  I £■ 

London  (from  same  obverse  die  as  nos.  7 and  8),  Plate  I. 

10  STATER  (Hill  no.  42). 

Similar.  Similar.  In  front,  | §|.  Behind, 

VH  I £• 

London  (from  same  obverse  die  as  nos.  7,  8,  and  9),  Plate  I. 


4 


The  Alexandrine  Coinage  of  Sinope  • 


11  STATER  (Hill  no.  41). 

Similar.  Similar.  In  front,  gsj  | §|.  Behind, 

§TE. 

London,  Plate  I. 

12  TETRADRACHM. 

Head  of  youthful  Herakles  to  r.  in  lion’s  BASIAEQS  on  r.  AAEEANAPOY  on  1. 
skin.  Zeus  enthroned  to  1.  holds  eagle  in  out- 

stretched  r.  and  sceptre  in  1.  Above  r. 
arm,  aplustre.  Beneath  r.  arm,  §|. 
Beneath  throne,  gd  | 5TE. 

Newell  Coll,  (formerly  Egger  Sale,  May,  1912,  no.  G94),  Plate  I. 

13  STATER  (Hill  no.  37). 

Similar  to  no.  11.  Similar  to  no.  11.  In  front,  U I §1. 

Behind,  w- 

London  (from  same  obverse  die,  now  very  much  rusted  and  cracked,  as  no.  11), 
Plate  I. 

14  STATER  (Hill  no.  52). 

Similar.  Similar.  In  front,  W3  | |-P  | §|.  Be- 

hind, y. 

Berlin  ; London,  Plate  I.  (These  two  coins  were  struck  from  different  obverse 
but  identical  reverse  dies.) 

15  STATER  (Hill  no.  51). 

Similar.  Similar.  In  front,  § I | Behind,  y. 

Berlin,  Plate  I.  (From  same  obverse  die  as  the  preceding  London  specimen.) 

16  TETRADRACHM  (Hill  no.  61). 

Similar  to  no.  12.  Similar  to  no.  12.  Above  r.  arm,  aplus- 

tre.  Beneath  r.  arm,  §|.  Beneath  throne, 

IE  I % 

Berlin,  Plate  I.  (This  coin  was  published  by  Prokesch-Osten,  Num.  Zeitschr. 
vol.  I,  p.  44,  no.  165,  but  monograms  were  badly  drawn.) 

17  STATER. 

Similar  to  no.  15.  Similar  to  no.  15.  In  front,  §1  | AA  | y. 

Behind,  f£]. 

Hague,  Plate  II.  (From  same  obverse  die  as  nos.  14  [London  specimen]  and  15). 

18  STATER  (Hill  no.  47). 

Similar.  Similar.  In  front,  A A | §|.  Behind, 

41. 

Copenhagen,  Plate  II. 

19  STATER  (Hill  no.  48). 

Similar.  Similar.  In  front,  | §1.  Behind, 

41. 

Petrograd  ; Berlin,  Plate  II.  (Both  from  the  same  reverse  die,  and  both  from 
the  same  obverse  die  as  no.  18). 


The  Alexandrine  Coinage  of  Sinope 


20  STATER  (Hill  no.  50  and  perhaps  no.  49). 

Similar.  Similar.  In  front,  K (recut  over  another 

monogram)  | §|.  Behind,^. 

Berlin,  Plate  II.  (From  the  same  obverse  die  as  nos.  18  and  19). 

21  STATER  (Hill  no.  46). 

Similar.  Similar.  In  front,  | §|.  Behind,  41. 

London,  Plate  II.  (From  same  obverse  die  as  nos.  18,  19,  and  20);  Newell  Coll, 
(formerly  Sir  II.  Weber  Coll.). 

22  STATER  (Hill  no.  45). 

Similar.  Similar.  In  front,  §1  | Al.  Behind,  41. 

London,  Plate  II. 

23  STATER. 

Similar.  Similar.  In  front,  Al  | §|.  Behind,  41. 

London,  Plate  II.  (From  same  obverse  die  as  preceding). 

24  STATER  (Hill  no.  44). 

Similar.  Similar.  In  front,  A I | §|.  Behind, 

London,  Plate  II.  (From  same  obverse  die  as  nos.  22  and  28). 

25  TETRADRACLIM  (Hill  no.  62). 

Similar  to  no.  16.  Similar  to  no.  1 6.  Above  r.  arm,  aplus- 

tre.  Beneath  r.  arm,  §|.  Beneath  throne, 
AN  | IE- 

Munich,  Plate  II. 

26  STATER  (Hill  no.  43). 

Similar  to  no.  24.  Similar  to  no.  24.  In  front,  A A | §1. 

Behind,  3E- 

London  ; Berlin,  Plate  II.  ( From  same  obverse  and  reverse  dies.  The  obverse 
die  is  also  the  same  as  used  for  nos.  22,  23,  and  24). 

27  STATER  (Hill  no.  54). 

Similar.  Similar.  In  front,  Cy  | §1.  Behind,  M-J. 

London,  Plate  II. 

23  STATER  (Hill  no.  53). 

Similar.  Similar.  In  front,  §1  | £.  Behind,  m 

or  Ml. 

London,  Plate  II ; Petrograd.  (Struck  from  same  obverse  and  reverse  dies. 
The  obverse  die  is  also  the  same  as  used  for  no.  27). 

29  TETRADRACHM  (Hill  no.  59). 

Similar  to  no.  25.  Similar  to  no.  25.  Above  r.  arm,  aplus- 

tre.  Beneath  r.  arm,  §1.  Beneath  throne, 

M- 


London. 


The  Alexandrine  Coinage  of  Sinope 


6 

30  TETRADRACHM  (Hill  no.  58). 

Similar.  Similar.  Above  r.  arm,  apltjstre.  Be- 

neath r.  arm,  §|.  Beneath  throne,  E. 

London. 

31  TETRADRACHM  (Hill  no.  60). 

Similar.  Similar.  Above  r.  arm,  apltjstre.  Be- 
neath r.  arm,  §|.  Beneath  throne,  I MH- 

London.  (From  the  same  obverse  die  as  preceding.) 

32  TETRADRACHM. 

Similar.  Similar.  Above  r.  arm,  aplustre.  Be- 

neath r.  arm,  A | §1.  Beneath  throne,  r*  I 
MH- 

Hague  ( no.  369). 

33  TETRADRACHM. 

Similar.  Similar.  Above  r.  arm,  aplustre.  Be- 

neath r.  arm,  A | §1.  Beneath  throne,  I 
CE. 

Berlin,  Plate  II.  (Same  obverse  die  as  preceding.) 

34  TETRADRACHM  (Hill  no.  64). 

Similar.  Similar.  Above  r.  arm,  aplustre.  Be- 

neath r.  arm,  A | §1.  Beneath  throne,  | 

C=J. 

Hague.  (Same  obverse  die  as  used  for  nos.  32  and  33.) 

35  TETRADRACHM  (Hill  no.  63). 

Similar.  Similar.  Above  r.  arm,  aplustre.  Be- 

neath r.  arm, /V)  | A | §1.  Beneath  throne, 

[SI- 

Munich. 

Of  the  first  series  only  a few  specimens  have  come  down  to  ns.  The 
staters  seem  to  have  been  marked  with  a simple  Aplustre,  or  with  that 
symbol  and  the  determining  letters  SI.  The  silver  bear  only  the  let- 
ters si. 

The  second  series  is  fairly  well  represented  in  our  museums  to-day, 
particularly  the  gold  staters.  These  are  now  all  provided  with  the  let- 
ters SI  and  a Star  instead  of  the  Aplustre.  The  silver  tetradrachms 
have  also  the  letters  si,  but,  instead  of  the  Star,  they  display  the  Aplus- 
tre. That  the  silver  and  gold  of  the  second  series  are  really  the  issues 
of  one  mint  is  satisfactorily  proved  by  the  stater  no.  11  and  the  accom- 
panying tetradrachm  no.  12.  While  the  one  has  a Star  for  a mint  mark 
and  the  other  an  Aplustre,  they  both  have  the  mint  letters  SI,  and  the 
magistrate’s  signatures  and  ste.  The  remaining  tetradrachms  also 


display  several  letters  and  monograms  found  on  the  staters.  As  Muller 
has  already  seen,  there  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  these  coins  are  all  the 
issues  of  one  and  the  same  mint. 

According  to  Muller  the  attribution  of  these  pieces  to  Si  don  rests 
upon  the  presence  of  the  letters  together  with  the  symbols  Aplustre 
and  Star.  There  can  be  no  question  but  that  ^ I represent  the  initial 
letters  of  the  mint  name,  for  with  the  exception  of  no.  1,  they  occur 
on  every  coin  throughout  the  entire  series.  But  the  evidence  presented 
by  these  letters  is  as  yet  inconclusive  as  they  might  with  equal  proba- 
bility represent  the  initial  letters  of  the  name  Sinope.  The  Aplustre  is 
in  very  much  the  same  case.  It  appears  with  great  frequency  on  the 
royal  Seleucid  issues  of  Sidon  from  the  reign  of  Alexander  Balas  down, 
and  must  certainly  be  considered  a symbol  of  that  mint.  But  it  only 
occurs  on  Sidonian  issues  after  the  year  150  B.  C.  (tetradrachm  dated 
BEP  = 151-150  B.  C.,  Rouvier,  no.  1227)  and  therefore  it  would  be  almost 
impossible  to  force  the  conclusion  that  this  symbol  must  necessarily 
prove  the  Sidonian  orgin  of  the  coins  we  are  at  present  concerned  with. 
Every  consideration  of  style  and  fabric  show  our  coins  to  be  at  least  a 
hundred  years  earlier  than  the  Sidonian  issues  of  Balas.  On  the  other 
hand  the  Aplustre  forms  a most  conspicuous  object  on  Sinopean  auton- 
omous issues  (see  figs.  1 and  2)  as  far  back  as  the  last  half  of  the  fourth 


century  B.  C.  It  is  a most  obvious  symbol  for  any  wealthy  sea  port 
whose  prosperity  rested  principally  upon  its  water  borne  commerce. 
Strabo  even  states  (xii,  545)  that  Sinope’s  fleet  dominated  the  Pontus. 

There  remains  the  Star  symbol.  Fortunately  this  throws  an  en- 
tirely different  light  upon  the  question.  So  far  as  the  writer  is  aware 
the  Star  symbol  never  occurs  until  long  after  our  era,  on  any  coin  de- 
monstrably attributable  to  Sidon.'2  On  the  other  hand  the  Star  does 

- In  the  writer’s  “ The  Dated  Alexander  Coinage  of  Sidon  and  Ake  ” the  Sidonian  Alexan- 
der stater  no.  1.  b bears  a star  on  the  obverse  within  the  coils  of  the  snake  ornament  adorning 
Athene’s  helmet.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  taken  as  in  any  way  connected  with  the  mint  at  Sidon 
but,  because  of  its  position,  must  be  considered  simply  as  an  emblem  of  eternity.  In  the  first 
century  A.  D.  the  star  at  times  appears  on  the  bronze  coinages  of  Sidon,  but  usually  accompanied 
by  a crescent.  See  the  British  Museum  Catalogue,  Phoenicia,  nos.  178-188  dated  77  to  88  A.  D.; 
nos.  197-203  dated  116  to  118  A.  D.;  and  no.  212  dated  55  A.  D.  These  coins  are  of  evidently 
too  late  a date  to  have  any  bearing  upon  the  subject. 


Fig.  1 


Fig.  2 


8 


The  Alexandrine  Coinage  oe  Sinope 


occur,  and  prominently,  on  the  third  century  autonomous  issues  of 
Sinope.  All  specimens  of  the  type  illustrated  by  fig.  2 bear  a Star  of 
similar  shape  and  character  to  the  one  found  on  our  Alexander  staters. 
Sinope  was,  in  fact,  famous  in  antiquity  for  its  many  cults  of  sidereal 
divinities.  Cults  of  Helios,  Selene,  Hydrochoos,  and  Sirius  are  well 
attested  to  by  coins  or  inscriptions,  showing  how  prominent  at  Sinope 
was  the  wors  hip  of  the  heavenly  bodies.  A star  would  therefore  be  a 
most  appropriate  symbol  for  Sinopean  coin  issues.  In  this  connection 
we  should  also  remember  that  Sinope  was  strengthened  in  the  eighth 
century  B.  C.  by  colonists  from  Miletus,  and  a star  is  one  of  the  most 
conspicuous  coin  types  of  the  mother  city.  Therefore,  if  we  once  admit 
that  the  Star  symbol  is  far  more  appropriate  to  a Sinopean  than  to  a 
Sidonian  origin  for  our  Alexander  coins,  then  the  Aplustre  and  the 
letters  ll  associated  with  it  fall  naturally  into  their  rightful  place  as 
accompanying  emblems  of  Sinope. 

We  have  already  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  we  have  every 
reason  to  expect  a large  coinage  of  the  Alexander  type  at  Sinope  in  the 
course  of  the  third  century  B.  C.  By  contrast  it  is  not  only  most  im- 
probable, but  actually  impossible,  that  there  should  have  been  such  a 
coinage  at  Sidon  for  the  same  period.  A few  years  ago  the  writer  dis- 
cussed in  detail  the  entire  Alexander  coinage  attributable  to  Sidon.3  It 
was  there  shown  that  this  had  come  definitely  to  an  end  by  the  year 
306/305  B.  C.,  its  place  being  taken  by  an  Alexander  coinage  at  Tyre. 
Later,  about  286  B.  C.,  that  city  went  over  from  Demetrius  to  Ptolemy 
I of  Egypt4  and  its  coinage  of  Alexander  staters  and  tetradrachms  came 
to  a sudden  end.  For  Ptolemy  had  already,  as  early  as  305  B.  C.,  in- 
troduced into  his  kingdom  an  entirely  new  coinage  of  Phoenician  weight 
and  bearing  his  personal  types.  Naturally,  therefore,  he  conformed  the 
coinage  of  his  new  possessions  in  Phoenicia  with  the  monetary  system 
now  in  vogue  in  Egypt.  He  retained  Tyre  as  his  principal  mint  in 
Phoenicia  and  it  was  not  until  during  the  reign  of  his  son  Ptolemy  II 
Philadelphus,  that  the  Sidonian  mint  was  once  more  reopened  after 
having  been  shut  down  ever  since  305  B.  C.  Only  coins  of  Phoe- 
nician weight  and  Ptolemaic  types  were  now  struck  at  this  mint 
(Svoronos,  nos.  712-721) . These  continued  to  appear  yearly  (Svoronos, 
nos.  722-756)  until  the  sixth  year  of  Ptolemy  III  Euergetes  (Svoronos, 
nos.  1024-1033),  and  after  that  time  intermittantly  until  the  final  cap- 
ture of  the  country  by  the  Seleucid  king  Antiochus  III  the  Great  in 

8 E.  T.  Newell,  “ The  Dated  Alexander  Coinage  of  Sidon  and  Ake,”  New  Haven,  1916. 

4 W.  W.  Tarn,  “ Antigonus  Gonatas,”  p.  105. 


The  Alexandrine  Coinage  of  Sinope 


9 


198  B.  C.  Thus  it  is  evident  that  throughout  the  course  of  the  third 
century  B.  C.  there  is  no  reason  whatsoever  to  expect  to  find  at  Sidon 
an  Alexander  coinage  with  its  types  and  weights  so  entirely  foreign  to 
the  monetary  system  obtaining  under  the  Egyptian  domination.  In 
fact  ever  since  the  standard  of  the  Egyptian  coinage  had  been  reduced 
by  Ptolemy  Soter  from  the  Attic  to  a pseudo -Rhodian  (circa  312  B.  C.) , 
and  then  definitely  changed  to  the  Phoenician  (after  305  B.  C.),  no 
coins  of  Attic  weight  were  ever  again  struck  within  the  boundaries  of 
the  Egyptian  possessions.  We  have  no  grounds  to  suppose,  then,  that 
Sidon  should  have  formed  an  exception  to  this  rule. 

When  Antiochus  III  secured  Phoenicia  he  again  suppressed  all  the 
mints  in  this  district  except  Tyre,  which  alone  was  allowed  to  continue 
striking  silver  money.  The  coins  were  once  more  of  Attic  weight  but 
of  purely  Seleucid  type  so  as  to  completely  conform  with  the  remainder 
of  that  kingdom’s  coinage.  Under  Antiochus  IV  Sidon,  as  a special 
privilege,  was  allowed  to  strike  copper  coins  but  with  the  portrait  of  the 
reigning  king.  The  same  is  true  under  the  succeeding  rulers  until  we 
come  to  Alexander  Balas  who  raised  both  Sidon  and  Berytus  to  the 
privileges  enjoyed  by  Tyre  and  allowed  the  three  cities  to  strike  silver 
money.  Sidon  henceforth  was  an  active  mint  of  the  Seleucid  kings 
coining  tetradrachms  principally  of  Phoenician  weight,  but  also  at 
times  of  Attic  weight.  It  is,  however,  a purely  Seleucid  coinage  and 
always  displays  the  portrait  of  the  ruling  king.  Now  the  Alexander 
coins  we  are  at  present  discussing  can  hardly  be  dated  as  late  as  the 
second  century  B.  C.  but  if  we  should  be  bold  enough  to  set  aside  all 
criteria  of  style  it  evidently  would  still  be  impossible  to  suppose  that 
Sidon  would  have  been  in  a position  to  issue  such  a series  at  this  time. 
Throughout  she  was  a royal  mint  and  only  issued  royal  Seleucid  money 
bearing  purely  Seleucid  or  local  types. 

The  only  district  along  the  entire  Syro- Phoenician  coast  that  was 
in  a position  to  strike  posthumous  Alexander  coins  after  this  region  had 
been  divided  between  the  Seleucid  and  the  Egyptian  kingdoms  in  the 
first  decade  of  the  third  century  B.  C.  was  Aradus  and  her  dependent 
cities  Carne  and  Marathus.  But  this  wTas  by  reason  of  their  being  free 
autonomous  cities  not  directly  subject  to  either  Syrian  or  Egyptian  dom- 
ination. Such  a status  none  of  the  remaining  Phoenician  towns,  Sidon 
included,  at  this  time  enjoyed  and  so  were  not  in  a position  to  issue 
coins  of  the  Alexander  type.  The  fact  that  Aradus  actually  did  issue 
Alexandrine  tetradrachms  during  the  third  century  B.  C.  is  for  us  a 


10 


The  Alexandrine  Coinage  of  Sinope 


most  fortunate  occurrence.  We  are  thus  enabled  to  determine  at  a 
glance  that  both  the  Aradian  coins  and  the  supposedly  Sidonian  Alex- 
ander coins  have  absolutely  nothing  in  common  in  either  style  or  fabric 
(compare  our  silver  tetradrachms  with  a typical  Alexander  tetradrachm 
of  Aradus  on  Plate  II,  B) . Neither  do  our  coins  at  all  resemble  in  these 
particulars  any  of  the  third  and  second  century  Alexander  issues  of  other 
Mediterranean  cities  from  Aradus  and  Aspendus  in  the  south,  along  the 
Ionian  coast,  and  so  north  to  the  Propontis.  The  moment,  however, 
that  we  reach  the  Euxine  and  compare  our  pieces  (both  gold  and  sil- 
ver) with  similar  coins  of  the  Alexandrine  type  known  to  have  been 
struck  by  various  cities  in  those  regions,  the  close  similarity  in  both 
style  and  fabric  is  at  once  apparent.  Compare  our  tetradrachms  on 
Plate  II  with  C on  that  plate  which  is  a tetradrachm  of  Odessus,  or 
our  staters  on  Plate  I with  A on  the  same  plate  which  is  a stater  of 
Istrus.  The  striking  similarity  points  to  the  fact  that  our  coins  are  of 
northern  rather  than  of  Phoenician  origin.  There  are  in  addition  two 
other  important  points  in  which  our  coins  resemble  the  Alexandrine 
issues  of  the  Euxine  districts.  The  points  comprise  the  unusually 
heavy  issue  of  gold  and  the  constant  presence  of  the  Ba<n\ew  title  on 
the  silver  pieces.  None  of  the  late  Alexandrine  coinages  of  either 
Phoenicia  or  of  Asia  Minor  south  of  the  Propontis  possess  these  char- 
acteristics. This  being  the  case  the  letters  21,  the  Aplustre,  the  Star, 
and  the  otherwise  surprising  lack  of  an  Alexandrine  coinage  for  Sinope 
all  point  unmistakeably  to  that  great  city  as  the  mint  of  our  series. 

In  turning  to  coin  finds  for  a possible  confirmation  of  our  new  as- 
signment the  writer  unfortunately  knows  of  only  one  hoard  that  would 
have  any  bearing  upon  our  subject.  This  is  the  famous  1 Find  of  Ami- 
dol ’ minutely  described  by  E.  M.  Pridik  in  the  Bulletin  for  1902  of  the 
Russian  Imperial  Archaeological  Commission.  The  Anadol  hoard  con- 
tained 11  staters  of  Philip  II,  694  staters  of  Alexander  III,  21  of  Philip 
III,  2 of  Demetrius  Poliorcetes,  1 of  Seleucus  I,  and  250  (3  being  of  the 
Alexander  type)  of  Lysimachus.  The  hoard  itself  was  unearthed  in 
January  1895  near  the  little  village  of  Anadol  in  Bessarabia.  Here,  as 
germaine  to  our  subject,  we  need  treat  only  of  the  694  pieces  bearing 
the  name  and  types  of  Alexander  the  Great.  Of  these  65  were  struck 
at  Messembria,  19  at  Istrus,  102  at  Odessus,  230  at  Callatis,  and  36  at 
an  as  yet  unidentified  mint  but  probably  Tomis,  making  a total  of  452 
pieces  or  considerably  more  than  half  from  the  mints  on  the  west  shore 
of  the  Euxine.  Seeing  that  such  a large  proportion  of  these  far  trav- 


The  Alexandrine  Coinage  of  Sinope 


11 


elling  coins  actually  come  from  the  district  in  which  the  hoard  was  un- 
earthed, we  might  reasonably  expect  that  it  would  also  contain  at  least 
a few  coins  of  Sinope,  with  which  seaport  the  western  shore  was  so 
closely  linked  by  the  ties  of  commerce.  It  is  pleasing  to  record  that 
the  hoard  in  question  did  contain  12  specimens  of  the  staters  we  would 
attribute  to  Sinope.  As  these  twelve  specimens  consisted  only  of  our 
varieties  nos.  1,  2 and  6,  we  may  deduce  the  probable  fact  that  the 
hoard  was  buried  not  long  after  Sinope  commenced  to  strike  her  Alex- 
ander money  and  before  the  later  and  commoner  types  (our  nos.  7-28) 
had  either  been  issued  or  had  had  time  to  reach  the  western  shore  in 
the  course  of  trade.  It  is  also  interesting  to  note  that  only  one  Alex- 
ander stater,  undoubtedly  struck  at  Sidon,  was  present  in  the  find,  in 
contrast  to  the  twelve  we  would  attribute  to  Sinope.  The  mere  fact 
also  that  so  many  examples  of  only  three  varieties  occurred  in  this 
northern  hoard  greatly  strengthens  our  conclusion  that  the  coins  we 
have  here  described  must  be  given  not  to  Sidon  but  to  Sinope. 


Plate  I 


SINOPE,  SERIES  I,  1-3;  SERIES  II,  4-16.  ISTRUS,  A. 


Plate  II 


SINOPE,  SERIES  II,  17-33.  ARADUS,  B.  ODESSUS,  C. 


/ 


/ / 


TYBUS  BEDIVIVA 


BY 

EDWARD  T.  NEWELI 


THE  AMERICAN  NUMISMATIC  SOCIETY 
BROADWAY  AT  156TH  STREET 


NEW  YORK 

1923 


COPYRIGHT,  1923 

THE  AMERICAN  NUMISMATIC  SOCIETY 


NEW  YORK 


TYRUS  REDIVIVA 


When  the  great  city  of  Tyre  finally  succumbed,  after  a brave  and 
obstinate  defense,  to  Alexander  and  his  armies  in  the  month  of  July,  332  B.  C., 
there  came  to  a sudden  end  a mint  which  had  been  in  constant  operation  for 
upwards  of  a hundred  and  fifty  years. 

Most  of  the  city’s  inhabitants  either  had  perished  in  the  siege  and  final 
assault  or  were  sold  into  slavery.  The  site,  however,  remained  of  such 
strategic  importance  and  was  so  admirably  constituted  by  nature  for  defense, 
that  Alexander  erected  here  a strong  fortress  and  recolonized  with  Carians 
the  ruins  of  the  old  city.  He  did  not,  however,  grant  the  new  settlement  and 
its  fortress  the  privilege  of  a mint.  This  important  function  was  carried 
on  by  the  old  mint  at  Sklon  and,  very  actively,  by  the  new  mint  established 
by  Alexander  himself  during  the  siege  of  Tyre  at  the  populous  city  of  Ake, 
or  Accho,  to  the  south.1  For  a period  of  upwards  of  a generation  these 
two  mints  continued  to  coin  in  considerable  quantities,  while  the  city  of  Tyre 
was  gradually  recovering  from  the  disaster  of  332  B.  C.  and  slowly  regaining 
its  former  commercial  importance  and  prosperity.  During  this  period  an 
active  local  trade  must  have  sprung  up  between  the  inhabitants  of  the  city, 
those  of  the  mainland,  and  the  large  garrisons  maintained  in  the  fortress  by 
Alexander  and  his  successors.  Evidence  of  this  exists  in  the  copper  coins 
which  as  early  as  the  year  321  B.  C.  had  to  be  struck  at  Ake  for  use  in  Tyre.2 
These  coins,  while  bearing  the  letters  TY,  initials  of  the  name  of  Tyre,  were 
certainly  struck  at.  Ake,  as  proved  by  their  style,  the  name  of  that  mint  in 
Phoenician  letters  *"[2?,  and  the  accompanying  date  — regnal  year  of  the  local 
dynast.  Similar  coins  exist  also  of  a slightly  varied  style  and  without  date.3 
The  important  point  of  all  this  for  us  lies  in  the  incontrovertible  evidence 
these  copper  coins  present  that,  at  least  as  late  as  the  year  321-320  B.  C.,  no 
mint  had  as  yet  been  re-established  at  Tyre.  For  evidently  the  coins  in- 
tended to  meet  the  needs  of  petty  transactions  in  her  bazaars  had  still  to 
be  coined  elsewhere.  Furthermore,  there  are  not  known  to  exist  any  gold 
or  silver  issues  bearing  Alexandrine  types  which  can,  with  any  probability 
whatsoever,  be  assigned  4 to  a supposititious  Tyrian  mint  at  this  period. 

1 Newell,  “ The  Dated  Alexander  Coinage  of  Sidon  and  Ake”,  passim. 

2 Newell,  loc.  cit.,  p.  60. 

3 Loc.  cit.,  p.  46,  No.  26. 

4 The  tetradrachm  assigned  by  Muller  to  Tyre  (his  No.  1423)  seems  almost  certainly  to  belong  to 
some  other  mint. 


Tyrus  Rediviya 


Apparently  the  state  of  affairs  as  outlined  in  the  preceding  paragraph 
continued  for  another  twelve  years  or  so.  Then  eventually  a mint  was 
re-opened  at  Tyre,  never  to  be  closed  again  until  the  reign  of  the  Roman 
emperor  Gallienus,  more  than  half  a millenium  later.  The  newly  opened 
mint  either  succeeded  or  gradually  eclipsed  the  mints  of  its  two  rivals,  Sidon 
and  Accho  (Ake),  whose  Alexandrine  issues  ceased  in  the  years  306-304  B.  C.1 
In  their  stead,  Tyre  commenced  to  strike  a numerous  series  of  Alexandrine 
gold  staters  and  silver  tetradrachms,  which  were  further  accompanied  by  a 
dated  series  of  didrachms  bearing  local  types.  These  continued  to  appear 
for  some  twenty-three  years,  covering  the  last  years  of  Antigonus’  reign  as 
well  as  the  ensuing  reign  of  his  son  Demetrius  Poliorcetes.  When  Ptolemy 
Soter  had  finally  succeeded  in  securing  Tyre,  he  immediately  saw  to  it  that 
the  city  conformed  its  issues,  in  both  types  and  weight,  to  the  coinage  of 
the  rest  of  his  dominions.  At  this  point  Svoronos  2 takes  up  the  story. 

Considering  first  the  Alexandrine  coinage  issued  by  Tyre  under  Anti- 
gonus and  Demetrius,  the  following  thirty-three  varieties  of  staters, 
tetradrachms,  and  drachms  have  been  arranged  almost  entirely  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  sequence  of  dies.  For  purposes  of  distinction  the  obverse 
dies  of  the  gold  staters  have  been  given  Roman  capital  letters,  the  reverses 
small  Greek  letters.  The  obverse  dies  of  the  tetradrachms  are  distinguished 
by  Roman,  the  reverses  by  Arabic  numerals. 


1 Loc.  cit.,  p.  37. 

2Ta  N 0fJ.iaiJ.ara  rod  K pdrovs  r u>v  nroXe/Mu'wi',  Nos.  626  ff. 


Tyrus  Rediviva 


3 


SERIES  I,  circa  306-301  B.  C. 

\ STATER  (Muller  No.  1588). 

Head  of  Athene  to  r.  in  crested  Corin-  AAEEANAPOY  on  r.  Winged  Nike 

thian  helmet  adorned  with  a double-coiled  standing  and  holding  wreath  in  outstretch- 
serpent.  ed  r.,  stylis  in  1.  In  field  to  1.,  (g)  ; in 

field  to  r.,  @). 

A — a London  f (Lang)  gr.  8.61,  Plate  I,  1 ; Berlin  j gr.  8.04  ; H.  A.  Greene 
f ; Paris  (No.  427)  i . 

A — (3  Berlin  ] . 

f 

2 TETRADRACHM  (Muller  No.  1589). 

Head  of  young  Herakles  to  r.  in  lion’s  AAEEANAPOY  on  r.  Zeus,  himation 

skin.  Circle  of  dots.  over  lower  limbs,  seated  on  high-backed 

throne  to  1.  He  holds  an  eagle  in  his  out- 
stretched r.  and  rests  1.  on  sceptre.  In 
field,  (g)  ; beneath  throne,  (J). 

I  — 1 Newell  J,  gr.  17.12,  Plate  I,  2 ; Berlin  f gr.  17.00  ; Petrograd  ; Athens. 

2 Newell  f gr.  17.14. 

3 Newell  f gr.  17.18  ; Newell  j gr.  17.07  ; Athens.1 

If  Berlin  f gr.  17.13. 

5 R.  Storrs  | . 

3 STATER  (Muller  No.  1593). 

The  same  die  as  No.  1.  This  die  is  Similar  to  No.  1,  but  (vjj)  in  1.  field,  and 
commencing  to  show  signs  of  wear.  ♦ behind  the  Nike  figure. 

A — 7 London  j (Lang),  Plate  I,  3 ; Newell  j gr.  8.60  ; Paris  — ♦ ; Berlin  | 
(Gen.  Fox  from  Lang);  Sir  H.  Weber  <—  gr.  8.62  ; Cambridge  (McClean) 
gr.  8.58  ; H.  A.  Greene  ; P.  Saroglos. 

4 TETRADRACHM  (Muller  No.  1592). 

All  but  one  specimen  from  the  same  die  Similar  to  No.  2 but  with  @ in  field, 
as  No.  2.  This  die  now  shows  signs  of  and  (^)  beneath  the  throne, 
wear  and  a crack  extending  from  bridge 
of  the  nose  to  the  dotted  circle. 

I — 6 Berlin  7 Plate  I,  4. 

7 R.  Storrs  ; P.  Saroglos. 

8 Athens. 

II  — - <8  The  Hague. 

1 The  Athens  and  the  first  Newell  specimen  show  a bad  break  commencing  in  the  lower  por- 
tion of  the  reverse  die  (No.  3).  On  the  second  Newell  specimen  this  break  has  been  mended,  but 
in  so  doing  the  monogram  beneath  the  throne  has  become  almost  entirely  obliterated. 


4 


5 DRACHM. 

Similar  to  the  preceding. 


Tyrus  Rkdi viva 


Similar  to  the  preceding,  and  with  the 
same  monograms. 

Naples  (St.  Angelo)  Plate  1,5;  Constantinople  (from  the  same  obverse 
and  reverse  dies  as  the  Naples  specimen). 


6 STATER. 

From  the  same  die  as  Nos.  1 and  3.  Die  Similar  to  Nos.  1 and  3.  In  front  of 
shows  increasing  signs  of  wear.  Nike,  (g)  and  (g). 

A — 8 London  j (Lang)  gr.  8.60,  Plate  I,  6 ; Berlin  j . 

7 STATER  (Muller  No.  1594). 

A new  die,  with  smaller  head  but  details  Similar  to  the  preceding  with  @ and  (g) 
similar  to  the  preceding.  in  front  of  Nike  and  A behind  Nike. 

B — e Berlin  f Plate  I,  7 ; P.  Saroglos. 

8 STATER. 

Similar  to  No.  6.  Similar  to  the  preceding.  In  1.  field, 

(g),  in  field  behind  Nike, 

C — p Petrograd,  Plate  I,  8. 


9  TETRADRACHM  (Muller  No.  1597). 

Similar  to  No.  4.  Similar  to  No.  4.  In  field,  (g),  beneath 

throne,  (g). 

II  — 0 Cambridge  (Fitzwilliam)  gr.  16.94,  Plate  I,  9;  Berlin  j gr.  16.72. 

10  TETRADRACHM  (Muller  Nos.  1595  and  1596). 

Similar  to  the  preceding.  Die  II  shows  Similar  to  the  preceding.  In  field, 
signs  of  wear.  beneath  throne,  @ or  (g). 

II  — 10  Newell  J,  gr.  17.05,  Plate  I,  10. 

11  Vienna. 

III  — 10  London  J,  . 

12  Munich  T , Plate  1,-11. 

11  TETRADRACHM. 

Similar  to  the  preceding.  Similar  to  the  preceding.  In  field, 

beneath  the  throne,  (|a)  or  (^). 

Ill  — 13  Newell  j gr.  16.90,  Plate  I,  12;  London  \ (recent  acquisition)  gr.  16.94. 
l!f  Petrograd  j , Plate  I,  13. 

12  TETRADRACHM. 

From  the  same  obverse  die  as  the  pre-  Similar  to  the  preceding.  In  field,  club 
ceding.  Large  cracks  are  now  visible.  IN  circle.  Beneath  throne, 

Ill  — 15  Newell  j gr.  17.18,  Plate  I,  14;  Newell  | gr.  17.17  ; Amer.  Numisma- 
tic Society  \gr.  17.13. 

10  Berlin  f gr.  16.90. 


Tybus  Rediviva 


5 


13  TETRADRACHM. 

Similar  to  the  preceding.  Similar  to  the  preceding.  In  held,  @ (?). 

Beneath  the  throne,  tgv. 

IV  — 17  Petrograd,  Plate  I,  15. 

SERIES  II,  circa  301-290  B.  C. 

14  TETRADRACHM  (Muller  No.  1591,  probably  also  No.  1590). 

Head  of  young  Herakles  to  r.  in  lion’s  AAEIANAPOY  on  r.,  BA5IAEQS  in  ex- 
skin. Circle  of  dots.  ergue.  Zeus  seated  on  high-backed  throne 

to  1.  He  holds  an  eagle  in  outstretched  r. 
and  rests  1.  on  sceptre.  In  held,  (§),  be- 
neath throne,  (g). 

V — 18  London  f , Plate  II,  1. 

15  STATER. 

Head  of  Athene  to  r.  in  crested  Corin-  AAEIANAPOY  on  r.  Winged  Nike 
thian  helmet  adorned  with  a single-coil  standing  and  holding  wreath  in  out- 
serpent.  stretched  r.  and  stylis  in  1.  In  front,  @, 

behind,  (g). 

D — £ Newell  J gr.  8.59,  Plate  II,  2 ; Berlin  J.  gr.  8.58  ; Commerce. 
r\  Municipal  Museum,  Lyon.  gr.  8.54. 

16  TETRADRACHM. 

Similar  to  No.  14.  AAEIANAPOY  on  r.,  BA5IAEQS  in  ex- 

ergue. Similar  in  style  and  details  to  No. 
14.  In  held,  @,  beneath  throne,  (s)  or  0. 

VI  — 19  Newell  \ gr.  17.00,  Plate  II,  3. 

20  London  \ gr.  16.71;  Berlin  ) . 

17  STATER  (Muller  No.  1601). 

Same  die  as  No.  15.  Similar  to  No.  15.  In  front  of  Nike,  ©, 

behind  Nike,  (j§)  or 

D — 8 London,  three  specimens  : f gr.  8.60,  J,  gr.  8.57,  (Lang)  f gr.  8.62, 
Plate  II,  4 ; Paris  f;  Berlin  j,  gr.  8.58. 
t Berlin  | . 
k Paris.1 

18  TETRADRACHM  (Muller  No.  1600). 

Similar  to  No.  16.  Die  VI  is  now  show-  AAEIANAPOY  on  r.,  BASIAEQS  in  ex- 
ing  signs  of  wear.  ergue.  Similar  to  No.  16.  In  held,  @), 

beneath  throne, 

VI  — 21  Munich  } . 

VII  — 22  Berlin,  Plate  II,  5. 

1 This  specimen,  as  well  as  that  enumerated  under  0,  proves  that  Muller  is  mistaken  (No. 
1601)  in  placing  the  second  monogram  in  front  of,  instead  of  behind,  the  iigure  of  Nike.  11  is 
description  is  based  on  this  Paris  specimen. 


6 


Tyrus  Rediviva 


19  STATER  (Muller  No.  1585). 

Same  as  No.  17,  die  showing  signs  of  Similar  to  No.  17.  In  front  of  Nike,  <@, 
wear.  behind  Nike,  @. 

D — \ Paris1  f , Plate  II,  6 ; Berlin  J,  gr.  8.60. 

20  TETRADRACHM  (var.  Muller  No.  1584). 

Same  as  No.  18,  but  both  dies  now  show-  Similar  to  No.  18.  In  field,  @,  beneath 
ing  signs  of  wear.  throne,  (§). 

VI  — 28  Berlin  f,  Plate  II,  7. 

24  London  f ; Newell  \ gr.  16.98. 

VII  — 24  Berlin  f , Plate  II,  8. 

25  Newell  J gr.  17.04. 

21  TETRADRACHM. 

Similar  to  the  preceding.  Similar  to  No.  20,  but  henceforth  with- 

out the  BASIAEftS.  In  field,  beneath 
throne,  (g. 

VIII  — 26  Yakountchikof,  gr.  16.53,  Plate  II,  9. 

22  STATER  (Muller  No.  1586). 

Same  as  No.  19.  Similar  to  No.  19.  In  front  of  Nike,  (§) , 

behind  Nike,  g).  On  die  ^ this  mono- 
gram has  more  the  form,  @). 

D — /ji  Newell  f gr.  8.59,  Plate  II,  10  ; Newell  f gr.  8.33  (edge  has  been  filed); 

Berlin  J gr.  8.55;  London  | (Lang)  gr.  8.64;  London  J gr.  8.58.  Two 
specimens,  both  j , in  commerce. 

v 2 Berlin  j gr.  8.61  ; Petrograd  f ; C.  S.  Bement,  Plate  II,  11 ; Commerce. 

23  TETRADR  ACHM  (Muller  No.  143) 

Head  of  young  Herakles  to  r.  as  on  the 

preceding. 

IX  — 27  Munich  [ , Plate  II,  12. 

24  STATER. 

Head  of  Athene  to  r.  in  crested  Corin 
thian  helmet. 

E — £ Petrograd,  Plate  II,  13. 

1 Here  again  Muller  (his  No.  1585)  is  mistaken  in  placing  the  second  monogram  in  front  of, 
instead  of  behind,  the  Nike  figure.  His  description  is  based  on  this  Paris  specimen. 

2 Die  r is  the  same  die  as  X,  but  with  the  monogram  in  field  re-engraved. 


Similar  to  No.  22.  In  front,  club  in 
circle,  behind  Nike,  . 


Similar  to  the  preceding.  In  fie'ld,  club 
in  CIRCLE,  beneath  throne,  . 


Tyrus  Rediviya 


7 


25  TETRADRACHM. 
Same  as  No.  23. 


Similar  to  No.  23.  In  field,  club  in 
circle,  beneath  throne,  @i.  On  dies  32 
and  33  the  club  is  to  r. 


IX  — 28  London  j , Plate  II,  14  ; Berlin  f ; Athens  / gr.  16.85. 

29  Alexandria  J,  . 

30  Newell  ],gr.  17.11,  Plate  II,  15. 

31  Vienna. 

32  Milan  t . 

33  Berlin  j gr.  17.05. 

X  — 32  Newell  j gr.  15.90  (cleaned  and  filed),  Plate  II,  16. 


26  TETRADRACHM. 

Same  as  the  preceding.  The  crack  on  Similar  to  the  preceding.  In  field,  club 
the  obverse  is  now  larger.  in  circle,  beneath  throne, 

IX  — 34  Hartford  | , Plate  II,  17. 

27  TETRADRACHM. 

Similar  to  the  preceding.  Similar  to  the  preceding.  In  field,  club 

in  circle  and  dolphin. 

XI  — 35  Boston. 

36  Vienna,  Plate  II,  18. 


SERIES  III,  circa  290-287  B.  C. 

28  TETRADRACHM. 

From  the  same  die  as  the  preceding.  AAEZANAPOY  on  r.  Zeus  enthroned 

as  on  the  preceding.  In  field,  club  and  e. 
XI  — 37a  Newell  j,  gr.  16.95,  Plate  III,  1. 

29  TETRADRACHM. 

From  the  same  die,  which,  now  shows  AHMHTPIOY  (on  die  37b  this  name  is 
increasing  signs  of  wear.  re-engraved  over  the  preceding  AAEZAN- 

APOY). Same  as  the  preceding.  Infield, 
club  and  e. 

XI  — 37b  Paris  j gr.  16.85,  Plate  III,  2. 

38  London  f , Plate  III,  3. 


30  TETRADRACHM. 

From  the  same  die,  which  is  now  in  a AHMHTPIOY  on  r.  Similar  to  the  pre- 
very  worn  state.  ceding.  In  field,  @ over  club  to  1. 

XI  — 39  Berlin,  Plate  III,  4. 


Tyrus  Rediviva 


31  TETRADRACHM. 

Similar.  AHMHTPIOY  on  i\,  BA5IAEQ5  in  ex- 

ergue. In  field,  club  in  circle,  beneath 
throne,  @. 

XI  — Jj.0  Kaftanzoglou  Coll.,  Plate  III,  5. 

XII  — Ifl  Berlin,  Plate  III,  6. 

32  TETRADRACHM. 

Erom  the  same  die  as  the  preceding.  Similar  to  the  preceding.  In  field,  club 

in  circle,  beneath  throne, 

XII  — Iffy  Newell  f gr.  1686,  Plate  III,  7. 

33  TETRADRACHM. 

From  the  same  die  as  the  preceding.  Similar  to  the  preceding.  In  field,  dol- 

phin in  circle,  beneath  throne,  A. 

XII  — Jj.3  Newell  J gr.  16.70,  Plate  III,  8. 

FIRST  ISSUES  UNDER  PTOLEMAIC  RULE 
After  cii'ca  286  B.  C. 

34  PHOENICIAN  TETRADRACHM  (not  in  Svoronos). 

Diademed  head  of  Ptolemy  Soter  to  r.  BA5IAEQS  on  r.,  TTTOAEMAIOY  on  1. 
Circle  of  dots.  Eagle  standing  to  1.  on  thunderbolt.  In 

field,  dolphin  to  1. 

Newell  \ gr.  14.17,  Plate  III,  9. 

35  PHOENICIAN  TETRADRACHM  (Svoronos  No.  626). 

Similar  to  the  preceding.  Similar  to  the  preceding.  In  field,  club. 

Newell  I gr.  14.16,  Plate  III,  10.  For  other  specimens  see  Svoronos,  vol.  II,  p. 
94,  No.  626. 


SERIES  r. 

The  first  series  consists  of  five  varieties  of  the  Alexander  stater  and  seven 
accompanying  varieties  of  the  tetradrachm,  and  one  drachm.  Three 
obverse  dies  (A,  B,  C)  and  six  reverse  dies  (a-p ) were  used  in  the  production 
of  the  staters,  while  six  obverse  (I-VI)  and  seventeen  reverse  (1-17)  dies 
were  necessary  for  the  production  of  the  tetradrachms.  The  drachm 
appears  to  be  very  rare  (it  is  known  in  two  specimens  only)  and  was  pro- 
duced from  a single  pair  of  dies. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  coins  here  described  were  struck  in  Tyre.  Both 
style  and  fabric  — as  well  as  the  usual  provenance  of  single  specimens  - 


Tyrus  Rediviva 


9 


point  to  Syria  or  Phoenicia  as  their  original  home.  The  specimens  earliest 
in  date  have  the  closest  stylistic  affinity  to  the  last  Alexandrine  issues  of 
Sidon.  The  only  symbols  which  we  find  used  are  the  club  (Nos.  12,  23  to  32 
inclusive)  and  dolphin  (Nos.  27,  33),  both  so  intimately  associated  with  Tyre. 
As  that  city  had  by  this  time  once  more  grown  to  be  the  foremost  on  the 
Phoenician  coast,  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  it  would  long  remain  without  a 
mint.  Especially  is  this  the  case  when  we  remember  that  the  mints  of  Sidon 
and  Ake  ceased  to  function  just  about  this  time,  thus,  apparently,  leaving 
only  Tyre  to  issue  money  in  all  this  district.  How  important  this  point  is 
will  be  grasped  when  we  stop  to  consider  that  under  Ptolemy  Soter  and  the 
first  few  years  of  Pliiladelphus’  rule  it  was  only  Tyre,  of  all  their  Phoenician 
possessions,  which  was  allowed  to  strike  coins.  Furthermore,  we  will  find 
this  corroborated  by  the  interesting  and  important  fact  that  the  first  coins 
struck  here  by  Ptolemy  are  identical  with  the  last  ones  struck  by  Demetrius 
in  style,  in  fabric,  and  in  the  symbols  (dolphin  or  club)  which  they  bear. 
Finally,  before  we  close  this  study,  we  shall  also  have  occasion  to  notice  the 
very  close  connection  between  our  Alexandrine  issues  and  the  series  of  dated 
Attic  didrachms  which,  because  they  bear  that  city’s  long-recognized  local 
types,  were  certainly  struck  at  Tyre. 

The  re-opening  of  the  mint  of  Tyre  may  be  set  at  about  the  year  307 
306  B.  C.,  as  shown  by  the  following  considerations.  The  style  of  the  obverse 
and  reverse  dies  of  these  Tyrian  tetradrachms  is  obviously  influenced  by  the 
Sidonian  issues  appearing  throughout  the  final  six  or  seven  years  of  that, 
mint’s  activities.1  Our  reverses  are  in  style,  appearance,  and  details  almost 
identical  with  those  of  Sidon.  Were  it  not  for  the  monograms  and  the  back 
to  the  throne  on  the  Tyrian  issues,  the  two  series  would  be  almost  indis- 
tinguishable. In  fact,  one  is  tempted  to  recognize  the  handiwork  of  the 
same  engravers  on  the  two  issues.  The  obverse  die  A of  the  Tyrian  gold 
staters,  Nos.  1,  3,  and  6,  is  modeled  on  that  of  the  Sidonian  issues  of  the 
year  2 (Oct.  316-Oct.  315  B.  C.).  Even  the  unusual  detail  of  the  double 
coil  to  the  serpent  ornament  on  Athene’s  helmet  is  reproduced.2  On  the 
other  hand,  Nike  has  the  straight  left  leg  of  the  same  figure  on  the  Sidonian 
gold  coinage  for  the  year  xp  (Oct.  311-Oct.  310  B.  C.)s.  It  is,  however,  very 
difficult  to  believe  that  the  Tyrian  issues  actually  commenced  as  early  as 
this  parallelism  would  seem  to  indicate.  In  the  first  place,  none  of  the 
earlier  Alexander  hoards  (Kyparissia,  Demanhur,  Saida,  all  in  the  ground  by 
318  B.  C.  at  the  latest)  contained  any  of  the  specimens  which  we  are  now 

1 Compare  the  coins  on  Plate  I with  the  Sidonian  tetradrachms  on  Plates  IV  and  V of  the  author’s 
“ The  Dated  Alexander  Coinage  of  Sidon  and  Ake.” 

2 Compare  the  staters,  Plate  I,  Nos.  2,  4,  6 with  Newell,  loc.  cit.,  Plate  IV,  3. 

3 Compare  the  reverses  of  Plate  I,  Nos.  2,  4,  6 with  Newell,  loc.  cit .,  Plate  IV,  17. 


10 


Tyrus  Rediviva 


studying.  There  were  also  none  in  a recent  Egyptian  find1  whose  latest 
known  dated  coin  was  a tetradrachm  of  Ake,  in  mint  condition,  bearing  the 
date  36 — or  Oct.  311-Oct.  310  B.  C.  Similarly,  there  were  none  in  the  Kuft 
hoard  (belonging  to  the  late  Dr.  S.  Davidson,  and  now  in  the  Ashmolean 
Museum,  Oxford)  which  contained  Sidonian  issues  down  to,  and  including, 
the  year  X (Oct.  312-Oct.  311  B.  C.)  and  Ake  issues  down  to,  and  including, 
the  year  37  (Oct.  311-Oct.  310  B.  C.).  Finally,  there  were  also  none  in  the 
great  Aleppo  hoard.  The  Aleppo  hoard  chances  to  be  preserved  to  us  in 
two  portions,  the  one  in  Vienna1®  containing  about  270  specimens  (all 
varieties),  and  the  other,  numbering  some  800  coins,  which  now  reposes  in  the 
Imperial  Ottoman  Museum  at  Constantinople.2  This  great  hoard  contained 
all  varieties  of  the  Ake  tetradrachm  up  to,  and  including,  the  year  10  (Oct. 
307-Oct.  306  B.  C.)  and  most  of  the  Sidonian  tetradrachms  up  to  and  in- 
cluding the  year  M B (Oct.  308-Oct.  307  B.  C.).  Since  the  hoard  gives  us 
no  coins  bearing  the  name  of  Seleucus,3  it  must  have  been  buried  not  long 
after  the  last  date  borne  by  these  Ake  tetradrachms.  As  the  hoard  was  a 
large  one,  with  a considerable  proportion  of  Syrian  and  Phoenician  issues, 
and  was  buried  in  Syria,  it  is  doubly  significant  that  it  should  have  con- 
tained not  a single  representative  of  the  earliest  Alexandrine  issues  of  Tyre. 
Our  mint  could  not  have  been  in  operation,  therefore,  much  before  307-306 
B.  C.,  if  as  early  as  that. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  possess  a hoard  of  a slightly  later  date  (Lang’s 
Larnaca  Find),  in  which  the  earlier  gold  staters  of  our  mint  were  strongly 
represented — all  in  brilliant  state  of  preservation.  Data  on  this  important 
hoard  is  furnished  us  by  the  few  varieties  Lang  himself  published,4  by  the 
many  specimens  which  entered  the  trays  of  the  British  Museum  from  Lang’s 
collection,  by  numerous  specimens  in  the  Fox  Cabinet  (now  in  the  Berlin 
collection  and  ticketed  by  their  former  owner  as  having  come  from  Lang’s 
1870  Find),  and,  finally,  by  a lot  of  nineteen  Alexander  staters  sold  at 
Sotheby’s,  June  17,  1913,  which  in  the  catalogue  are  stated  to  have  been 
“Found  at  Nikosia,  Cyprus,  1870.”  In  the  last  instance,  as  both  the  date 
and  the  varieties  enumerated  tally  exactly  with  what  we  know  of  Lang’s 

1 Recently  ascertained  to  have  come  from  Mansoura.  1,1  Mentioned  by  the  writer,  loc.  cit.,  p.  58. 

2 These  coins  were  catalogued  and  arranged  in  the  summer  of  1918  by  Dr.  Kurt  Regling,  and 
named  by  him  “Fund  aus  Antiochien.”  The  contents  of  the  two  hoards  are  identical,  and  from  in- 
dications furnished  the  writer  by  Halil  Bey,  Director  of  the  Museum,  it  is  practically  certain  that  the 
Vienna  and  the  Constantinople  lots  come  from  one  and  the  same  hoard  unearthed  about  1892. 
Whether  it  was  actually  found  at  Aleppo  or  at  Antioch,  or  in  the  neighborhood  of  one  or  the  other  of 
these  two  cities,  is  hardly  vital,  and  is  furthermore  practically  impossible  to  determine  at  this  late  date. 

3 Seleucus  probably  first  commenced  to  issue  coins  of  the  old  Alexandrine  types  but  bearing  his 
own  name,  in  the  year  306-305  B.C. 

4 Num.  Chron.,  N.  S.  XI,  1871,  pp.  229-234. 


Tyrus  Rediviva 


11 


hoard,  it  is  probable  that  one  and  the  same  find  is  meant.  In  this  Sotheby 
lot,  of  the  nineteen  Alexanders  described,  no  less  than  eleven  are  of  our 
Tyrian  varieties. 

The  contents  of  Lang’s  hoard,  taken  as  a whole,  indicate  clearly  that  it 
must  have  been  buried  at  a somewhat  later  date  than  the  Aleppo  hoard. 
On  the  other  hand,  like  the  Aleppo  hoard,  it,  too,  contained  no  coins  struck 
in  the  names  of  Seleucus,  Lysimachus,  or  Demetrius.  Therefore,  we  cannot 
place  it  too  late.  A date  lying  somewhere  between  the  years  300  and  295 
B.  C.1  would  seem  to  be  justified.  For  although  Lysimachus2  and  Seleucus 
commenced  coining  staters  bearing  their  own  names  somewhat  before  this 
time,  Antigonus  and  his  son  Demetrius  were  at  war  with  both  of  these 
sovereigns,  and  the  island  of  Cyprus  was  far  removed  from  their  mints.  In 
all  probability,  considering  the  conditions  prevalent  at  this  period,  it  would 
have  required  some  time  for  specimens  of  their  issues  to  find  their  way  to 
Cyprus.  Of  Demetrius’  Alexandrine  coinages  bearing  his  name,  only  two 
or  three  varieties  were  issued  previous  to  295  B.  C.,  as  the  writer  is  showing 
in  a monograph  on  Demetrius  about  to  be  published.  These  few  varieties 
are  excessively  rare  and  therefore  they  might  well  have  missed  being  gathered 
in  by  the  ancient  owner  of  Lang’s  hoard. 

The  Epidaurus  Hoard,3  buried  at  some  time  between  the  years  287  and 
281  B.  C.,  contained  two  specimens  of  No.  2 and  one  specimen  of  No.  25. 
Again,  two  varieties  of  our  silver  tetradrachms  (Nos.  9 and  20)  were  con- 
tained in  a hoard  said  to  have  been  unearthed  near  Salonica  in  Macedonia.4 
The  hoard  must  have  been  buried  between  287  and  280  B.  C.,  as  it  contained 
the  latest  issues  of  Demetrius  Poliorcetes  and  Lysimachus  in  very  fine  con- 
dition. The  Kililer  (Thessaly)  Hoard,  also  buried  about  280  B.C.  and  now  in 
the  Athens  collection,  contained  a specimen  of  No.  10  in  poor  condition. 
Furthermore,  specimens  of  Nos.  2 and  16  turned  up  in  good  condition  in  a 
hoard  said  to  have  been  found  near  Angora.  As  this  hoard  contained  many 
varieties  of  the  earlier  issues  of  Seleucus  but  none  of  his  later  ones,  and 
apparently  none  of  the  coinages  of  Demetrius  Poliorcetes,  it  was  probably 
buried  not  long  after  300  B.  C.  Thus,  from  the  weighty  evidence  of  finds, 

'Possibly  the  hoard  was  actually  buried- during  the  troublous  year  296/5  B.  C.  when  Ptolemy 
seized  the  island. 

2 Certain  hints  furnished  by  his  coins  suggest  that  Lysimachus  did  not  actually  place  his  name  upon 
his  coins  until  about  the  time  of  the  battle  of  Ipsus,  301  B.  C. 

3 Nowin  the  Athens  National  Collection.  Published  by  Keramopoulos  in  the  ’ ApxaioAoyiKrj, 

1903,  pp.  98-116. 

4 According  to  a statement  made  to  the  writer  by  Dr.  Walla  of  Vienna,  this  hoard  came  to  him  from 
Salonica.  It  is  listed  in  “ Preis-Liste  . . . anti  Ice  griechische,  romisehe  and  byzantinische  Miinzen 
etc.  1897-8,  Heft  VI  under  Nos.  55  to  74,  Nos.  78  to  162,  Nos.  166,  168—180,  Nos.  183-189,  Nos. 
239-268. 


12 


Tyrus  Rediviva 


supported  by  indications  of  style,  we  may  conclude  that  the  Tyrian  Alex- 
ander series  cannot  well  have  appeared  before  307  B.  C.,  but  that  it  must 
have  commenced  shortly  after  this  date,  and  that  during  the  following 
decade  its  production  was  in  full  swing. 

SERIES  II. 

The  terminal  date  of  the  first  series  has  been  somewhat  arbitrarily  placed 
at  about  301  B.  C.  The  choice  of  this  date  is  based  on  two  considera- 
tions. In  the  first  place,  it  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  the  small  number  of 
dies  employed  in  its  production  could  have  lasted  over  a longer  stretch 
than  some  six  or  seven  years.  In  our  study  of  the  dated  coinages  of  Sidon 
and  Ake,  it  may  be  observed  that  the  average  life  of  an  obverse  die  (both  in 
the  gold  and  in  the  silver  issues)  was  about  two  years.  In  only  exceptional 
cases  did  an  obverse  die  last  into  the  third  year  or  longer.  Again,  our 
second  series  is  distinguished  by  the  appearance  of  the  /3ao-iXeu<?  title. 
There  seems  no  apparent  explanation  of  this  sudden  adoption  of  the  title 
unless  we  accept  the  following  very  tentative  suggestion.  After  the. 
Empire  of  Antigonus  had  “ crashed  ” on  the  field  of  Ipsus  in  301  B.  C.,  his  son 
Demetrius  very  soon  came  to  discard  some  of  the  old-fashioned  notions 
regarding  the  coinage  which  his  father  seems  to  have  entertained.  Under 
Antigonus  no  other  types  than  the  old  Alexander  one  had  been  countenanced 
for  the  coinage  of  the  realm.  But  after  Demetrius  became  the  sole  arbiter 
of  the  Kingdom,  he  introduced  his  own  name  on  the  Alexander  coinage 
and  almost  immediately  followed  this  by  adopting  his  own  types  in  place 
of  the  old.  Although  it  cannot  be  successfully  maintained  that  Antigonus 
went  so  far,  during  the  final  years  of  his  reign,  as  not  to  allow  the  appear- 
ance of  the  /3acrtXeu5  title  on  his  Alexander  coinages,  still  its  presence  after 
about  310  B.  C.  seems  to  be  the  exception  rather  than  the  rule.  Judging 
from  what  we  know  of  Demetrius’  character,  he  would  have  had  no  such 
scruples.  The  main  reason  for  placing  the  end  of  Series  I in  301-300  B.  C. 
is  principally  based  on  grounds  of  style  and  consideration  of  dies. 

Our  entire  second  series  is  composed  of  staters  and  tetradrachms.  Of 
the  staters,  we  possess  two  obverse  dies  (D,  E),  and  nine1  (£-£)  reverse  dies, 
and  of  the  tetradrachms  seven  (V-XI)  obverse,  and  nineteen  ( 18-36 ) 
reverse  dies.  Many  of  the  obverse  dies  show  obvious  signs  of  long  use. 
This,  together  with  the  greater  number  of  tetraclrachm  dies  that  have  come 
down  to  us,  leads  us  to  assign  a somewhat  longer  term  of  years  for  the  dura- 
tion of  this  series,  i.  e.  from  about  300-290  B.  C.  Although  no  instance  of  a 
die  having  been  carried  over  from  Series  I to  Series  II  is  found,  still  the  re- 


1 Only  eight  dies,  in  fact,  for  X and  v are  really  the  same  die  re-engraved. 


Tyrus  Rediviva 


13 


appearance  of  several  of  the  monograms,  as  well  as  the  symbol  of  the  club 
in  circle,  is  proof  enough  that  we  still  have  to  do  with  the  issues  of  a 
single  mint.  The  club  in  circle  now  occurs  more  frequently,  and  in 
one  instance  (No.  27)  is  accompanied  by  a dolphin.  Both  of  these 
symbols  are  distinctly  Tyrian  in  character.  The  club  refers  directly  to 
Tyrian  Heracles  as  he  was  conceived  by  the  Greeks,  while  the  dolphin 
(one  of  the  earliest  types  found  on  Tyrian  coins)  was  later  a constant  com- 
panion of  the  native  conception  of  the  god  Melkarth.1 

While  the  style  displayed  by  the  issues  of  Series  I is  distinctly  good, 
in  many  cases  very  fine,  that  of  Series  II  rapidly  deteriorates.  Throughout 
this  period  Demetrius  was  beset  by  enemies  on  all  sides.  In  295,  all  his 
Eastern  possessions,  with  the  sole  exception  of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  were  seized 
either  by  Seleucus.  or  by  Ptolemy.  It  was  with  difficulty  that  he  seems  to 
have  maintained  his  hold  on  Tyre.  Indications  of  these  evil  times  would 
seem  to  be  shown  clearly  by  the  increasing  length  of  time  during  which 
old  dies  were  used,  the  ever  growing  poverty  of  the  art  and  technique  dis- 
played in  their  production,  and  the  increasingly  obvious  signs  of  haste 
and  carelessness  in  the  actual  striking  of  the  coins  themselves.  This  last 
point  may  not  seem  conclusive  on  the  plates  which  accompany  this  article, 
for  only  the  choicest  of  the  available  specimens  have  been  selected  for 
illustration.  Many  of  the  other  specimens  of  Nos.  14-27  are  struck  on  flans 
too  small  for  the  dies.  Often  the  dies  themselves  have  not  been  placed 
squarely  on  the  blanks,  and  so  portions  of  the  types  are  missing.  This  is  in 
contrast  to  the  coins  of  Series  I,  where,  as  a rule,  the  dies  have  been  carefully 
placed  and  the  coins  neatly  and  cleanly  struck. 

SERIES  III. 

If  the  previous  series  was  of  poor  style  and  flighty  workmanship,  in 
these  respects,  the  present  one  is  infinitely  worse.  Its  appearance  might 
well  be  termed  disgraceful  were  it  not  for  our  knowledge  that  Demetrius’ 
power  was  at  this  time  tottering  to  its  fall.  The  two  cities  of  Sidon  and 
Tyre,  surrounded  by  enemies  ready  to  pounce  upon  them,  remained  his 
sole  Phoenician  possessions.  During  the  final  portion  of  Demetrius’  reign 
the  commercial  situation  in  Tyre  must  have  been  well-nigh  desperate. 
Surrounded  by  Ptolemy’s  forces,  cutting  it  off  from  the  sources  of  prosperity 
in  the  hinterland,  its  sea  routes  blocked  by  Seleucus’  possession  of  the 
Syrian  and  Cilician  coasts,  but  especially  by  Ptolemy’s  possession  of  the 
commanding  island  of  Cyprus,  Tyre’s  trade  at  this  time  must  have  been 
of  an  exceedingly  precarious  nature.  No  wonder  then  that  its  coin  issues, 

1 For  the  dolphin  as  the  principal  type  on  Tyrian  coins,  see  Brit.  Mus.  Cat.  Phoenicia,  Plate  XXVIII, 
Nos.  9-15.  For  the  dolphin  with  Melkarth,  see  Plate  XXVI 1 1,  Nos.  16,  17,  and  Plate  XXIX,  Nos.  1-16. 


14 


Tyrus  Rediviva 


during  the  remaining  four  years  of  Demetrius’  reign,  were  both  scanty  and 
poor  in  appearance. 

One  obverse  die  (XI),  already  in  a very  bad  state  of  repair,  was  carried 
over  from  the  preceding  issue.  We  may  notice  that  the  outlines  and  details 
of  the  Heracles  head  have  become  weakened  and  blurred,  while  a depression 
has  developed  in  the  field,  practically  obliterating  the  line  of  the  nose.  The 
accompanying  reverse  die  (37a)  still  bears  the  name  of  Alexander,  but  a 
departure  has  been  made  in  the  indication  of  the  marks  of  control.  The 
usual  monogram  in  a circle  beneath  the  throne  is  entirely  absent,  and  the 
circle  surrounding  the  symbol  or  monogram  in  the  field  has  been  removed. 
Here  we  now  find  only  a simple  club,  and  alongside  of  it  the  magistrate’s 
initial,  E. 

While  this  pair  of  dies  (XI-57a)  was  still  in  use,  the  Tyrian  mint 
authorities  decided,  or  were  instructed,  to  substitute  the  name  of  Demetrius 
for  that  of  Alexander.  During  the  time  that  a new  die  embodying  this 
change  was  being  cut,  it  was  evidently  not  found  expedient  to  stop  minting 
operations  entirely.  So  the  old  die  (37a)  was  merely  taken,  and  the  name 
Arj/ArjTpLov  hastily  engraved  over  the  former  \Wegdv8 pov,  the  altered  die 
then  being  put  to  use  again.  The  coin  (No.  28,  Plate  III,  1)  in  the  writer’s 
collection  was  struck  from  this  die  before  the  alteration.  The  specimen  in 
the  Paris  collection  (No.  29,  Plate  III,  2)  was  struck  after  the  alteration. 
The  original  piece  has  been  very  carefully  scrutinized  by  the  writer,  and 
it  is  certain  that  the  alteration  was  actually  made  in  the  original  die 
(and  not  perhaps  on  the  coin  itself  in  modern  times).  The  work  of 
re-engraving  was  so  hastily  done  that  even  to  the  naked  eye  distinct  traces 
of  the  former  ’AAe^oAS pov  letters  are  still  visible  beneath  those  of  A pp^rpiov. 
Interestingly  enough,  in  the  British  Museum  collection  a coin  (Plate 
III,  3)  struck  from  the  same  old  obverse  die  is  preserved  (XI)  but  with 
its  reverse  from  the  new  die  which  took  the  place  of  the  temporary  die  with 
its  altered  inscription.  Although  no  less  than  four  other  varieties  of  the 
Demetrius  tetradrachm  were  struck  before  Tyre  finally  went  over  to 
Ptolemy,  only  one  more  obverse  die  (XII)  is  known.  This,  in  style,  is  the 
poorest  of  all.  The  Heracles  head  is  a mere  travesty  of  some  of  the  fine 
conceptions  appearing  in  Series  I.  The  Zeus  figure  on  the  final  three  reverse 
dies  (41 , 4®>  43)  is  also  exceedingly  poor,  showing  to  what  depths  the  art 
of  the  Tyrian  die  engravers  had  now  fallen.  The  symbol  in  the  field  is  once 
more  a club  in  circle,  except  on  No.  33  where  the  Tyrian  dolphin  takes 
its  place. 

At  this  point,  the  Alexandrine  issues  of  Tyre  abruptly  cease.  Philokles, 
King  of  Sidon  and  admiral  of  Demetrius’  naval  forces  in  the  Phoenician 


Tyrus  Rediviva 


15 


waters,  finally  recognized  the  writing  on  the  wall.  With  his  entire  fleet 
he  went  over  to  Ptolemy,1  and  the  Phoenician  province,  apparently  without  a 
struggle,  fell  like  a ripe  apple  into  the  waiting  hands  of  the  astute  old 
Lagid.  Ptolemy,  naturally,  at  once  suppressed  the  Attic  weight-system  and 
Alexandrine  types  of  his  rival,  substituting  therefor  his  own  types  and  the 
so-called  Phoenician  weight-system  which  he  had  finally  adopted  for  the 
Egyptian  coinage.  The  two  earliest  specimens  of  this  issue  at  Tyre  are 
here  described  (Nos.  34,  35)  and  reproduced  on  Plate  III,  9 and  10.  The 
first  of  these  is  unknown  to  Svoronos  and,  in  imitation  of  Demetrius’  last 
issue  (No.  33),  a dolphin  has  been  placed  in  the  field  as  symbol.  The  follow- 
ing series  again  adopts  the  club  of  heracles  as  the  symbol  of  the  Tyrian 
mint,  and  this  remains  henceforth  as  such  throughout  the  Ptolemaic  and 
Seleucid  issues  of  the  next  two  centuries.  The  two  Ptolemaic  coins  repro- 
duced on  Plate  III  are  particularly  interesting  because  they  show  that  the 
poor  style  of  the  latest  Alexandrine  issues  of  Demetrius  is  directly  carried 
over  onto  the  succeeding  coinage  of  Ptolemy.  Evidently,  the  old  die-en- 
gravers, after  the  defection  of  their  city  to  Egypt,  for  a time  continued  to 
work  for  their  new  masters.  Their  issues  thus  fill  an  otherwise  obvious  gap 
between  the  poor  work  of  Demetrius’  last  issues  and  the  fine  style  of  the 
coins  issued  soon  after  under  the  Ptolemies  (see  Svoronos,  Plate  XIX,  No.  2 
and  ff.) 

LOCAL  ISSUES. 

A study  of  the  mint  of  Tyre  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  and  the  beginning 
of  the  third  century  B.  C.  would  not  be  complete  without  also  taking  into 
consideration  the  much-discussed  Tyrian  didrachms  of  Attic  weight  bearing 
purely  local  types.2  These  particular  coins  have  formed  the  subject  of 
numerous  studies.8  While  all  are  in  complete  accord,  insofar  as  they  would 
assign  these  coins  to  a period  subsequent  to  the  arrival  of  Alexander  the 
Great  in  Phoenicia,  they  nevertheless  differ  widely  as  to  the  exact  date  at 
which  these  coins  probably  appeared.  Although  the  coins  themselves  bear 
dates  expressed  in  Phoenician  numerals,  unfortunately,  far  from  clarifying 
the  situation,  these  have  but  added  a worse  confusion,  for  they  can  be 
made  to  fit  almost  any  one  of  the  many  eras  known  to  have  been  in  use  at 
the  period  during  which  the  coins  were  being  struck. 

1 Tarn,  p.  104  ff.  and  notes. 

2 Rouvier,  Nos.  1799  1818;  B.  M.  C.,  Phoenicia,  Nos.  25-42 ; Babelon,  Traitt  II,  2, Nos.  1009- 
1016.  Here,  Plate  III,  Nos.  11  -15,  all  in  the  writer’s  collection. 

3 Of  which  the  more  recent  are:  Six,  Num.  Chron.,  1877,  p.  191;  J.  Rouvier,  Rev.  des  Etudes 
Grecques,  1899,  pp.  362  ff. ; and  Rev.  Num.,  1909,  p.  330;  R.  Dussaud,  Rev.  Nu.m.,  1908,  pp.  445  ff. ; 
Babelon,  Traite  II,  2,  pp.  622-8;  Hill,  Brit.  Cat.  Mus.  Phoenicia,  Introd.,  pp.  cxxix-cxxxi;  Svoronos, 
loc.  cit.,  Vol.  I,  pp.  pire'  ff. 


16 


Tyrus  Rediviva 


Before  hailing  any  one  of  the  theories  thus  far  advanced  as  the  correct 
one,  or  before  discarding  them  all  and  offering  a new  suggestion,  let  us  look 
at  the  coins  themselves  and  become  acquainted  with  the  actual  material. 
These  coins  have  so  often  been  studied  and  discussed  that  it  will  not  be 
necessary  for  us  to  draw  up,  once  more,  a catalogue  of  the  known  varieties. 
Such  a catalogue  will  be  found  given  in  both  Rouvier’s  and  Babelon’s  works, 
as  well  as  in  the  catalogue  of  Phoenician  coins  in  the  British  Museum.  These 
studies  contain  all  the  material  at  present  available,  and,  so  thoroughly  has 
the  ground  been  worked  over,  it  is  probable  the  future  can  offer  but  few 
varieties  as  yet  unknown  to  us. 

As  stated  above,  the  coins  are  Attic  didrachms  and  bear  the  old  Tyrian 
types.  On  the  obverse  is  Melkarth  riding  to  r.  upon  a winged  sea  horse, 
depicted  as  swimming  over  the  waves,  below  which  may  be  seen  a dolphin. 
On  the  reverse  is  the  owl  bearing  the  crook  and  flail  — Egyptian  symbols  of 
royalty.  In  the  field  of  the  reverse  are  to  be  seen  various  Phoenician  letters 
(X  2 or  2)  and  the  numerals  ( j = 1,  n = 10,  0 = 20)  which  have  caused  so 
much  conjecture  and  discussion  among  students.  The  coins  fall  into  three 
main  groups.  The  earliest  in  style  (A),  Plate  III,  11,  is  characterized  by 
the  letter  2 (probably  standing  for  the  mint  name  “112)  accompanied  by 
the  three  dates  l|,  |||,  or  HI).1  This  is  succeeded  by  a second  group  (B), 
Plate  III,  12,  of  which  the  first  issue  bears  the  letter  2 (in  the  place  of  2), 
and  the  letter  2 (probably  for  the  usual  formula  n3IT2)  in  front  of  the  date  | . 
The  remaining  issues  of  this  group  (B),  Plate  III,  13,  omit  the 2 and  place 
the  2 in  front  of  the  dates  |,  ||,  and  |||.  The  final  group  (C),  Plate  III, 
14-16,  obviously  later  in  style  than  A and  B,  bears  only  dates  running 
from  23  to  37. 

The  first  two  groups  may,  for  the  present,  be  dismissed  by  accepting 
the  suggestion  frequently  put  forward  2 that  the  dates  they  bear  merely 
represent  the  regnal  years  of  local  dynasts.  The  crux  of  the  whole  matter 
lies  in  the  question,  To  what  era  should  we  refer  the  dates  23-37  found  on 
group  C?  No  less  than  four  different  eras  have  been  suggested  in  recent 
years.  The  failure  of  so  many  competent  scholars  to  arrive  at  an  agree- 
ment after  so  many  thorough  and  able  discussions,  is  probably  entirely  due 
to  the  fact  that  they  were  forced  to  discuss  these  Tyrian  didrachms  solely 
on  their  own  merits.  This  inevitably  led  to  widely  diverse  conclusions, 
almost  any  one  of  which  could  lay  claim  to  a large  amount  of  plausibility. 
Fortunately,  our  possession  of  a continuous  series  of  coins  of  Alexandrine 

1 There  is  a specimen,  No.  33,  in  the  British  Museum,  with  and  the  higher  date  1110  (=  23). 
This  particular  specimen,  however,  is  fouree.  In  other  words,  it  is  an  ancient  forgery  and  so  need 
not  be  taken  into  account. 

2 Among  others,  Rouvier,  Rev.  Num.,  1909,  p.  330. 


Tvnus  I J i:m viva 


17 


types,  which  must  be  assigned  to  the  mint  of  Tyre  towards  the  end  of  the 
Fourth  Century  B.  C.,  throws  an  entirely  new  light  upon  the  matter.  With 
their  assistance  we  can  subject  the  various  eras  proposed  to  the  test  and 
perhaps  arrive  at  some  really  definite  conclusion. 

For  these  Tyrian  didrachms,  Dr.  Rouvier  1 follows  Six  2 in  adopting  the 
era  of  Alexander  the  Great  in  Phoenicia,  which  took  its  inception  with  the 
battle  of  Issus  in  333  B.  C.  Mr.  Hill  has  already  drawn  attention  3 to  cer- 
tain minor  defects  of  this  era  as  applied  to  the  Tyrian  didrachms.  A 
really  serious  difficulty  in  the  way  of  accepting  Rouvier’s  dating  is  now 
raised  by  the  series  of  Tyrian  Alexanders.  We  have  seen  how  the  contents 
of  the  Saida,  Demanhur,  Kuft,  Mansoura  and  Aleppo  hoards  agree  in  prov- 
ing none  of  our  Alexander  coins  could  have  been  struck  at  Tyre  before 
307-306  B.  C.  at  the  earliest.  The  Angora  and  Larnaca  hoards,  on 
the  other  hand,  show  that  their  issue  was  in  full  swing  by  300  295  B.  C. 
If  now  we  apply  group  C to  the  era  of  Alexander  in  Phoenicia,  we  find  that 
the  didrachm  dated  23  must  have  appeared  in  310-309  B.  C.,  and  the  last 
date  known,  37,  in  296-5  B.  C.  This  means  that  not  only  was  this  particu- 
lar series  commenced  at  least  two  to  three  years  previous  to  the  establish- 
ment at  Tyre  of  a mint  coining  Alexander  staters  and  tetradrachms,  but  it 
does  not  take  into  account  groups  A and  B,  which  by  their  style  must  have 
preceded  group  C.  On  the  face  of  it,  then,  it  does  not  seem  to  the  writer 
in  the  least  reasonable  to  suppose  that  silver  coins  of  local  types  were  being 
minted,  of  all  places,  at  Tyre  for  some  ten  years  previous  to  the  issue  of  the 
then  “coin  of  the  realm,”  namely,  coins  of  Alexandrine  types.  Throughout 
this  period  in  the  Eastern  Mediterranean,  at  Tarsus,  Salamis,  Sidon,  Ake 
(to  name  but  a few  of  the  principal  mints),  Alexandrine  coins  were  being- 
issued  in  great  quantities.  From  time  to  time  small  denominations  in  silver 
and  bronze  with  local  types  had  also  appeared,  but  always  subordinate  to 
the  regular  Alexandrine  issues.  Therefore  it  seems  hardly  likely  to  suppose 
that  Tyre,  the  strongest  fortress  of  the  entire  Phoenician  coast  and  com- 
mercially rapidly  coming  into  its  own  again,  would  have  been  allowed  by 
Antigonus  to  strike  only  coins  bearing  the  old  local,  Tyrian,  types.  If 
there  was  a mint  at  all,  operating  at  Tyre  before  307  B.  C.,  it  must  also  have 
been  coining  the  orthodox  staters  and  tetradrachms  bearing  Alexander’s 
name  and  types.  Finally,  the  adoption  of  Dr.  Rouvier’s  theory  would 
bring  the  close  of  the  didrachm  series,  for  no  apparent  reason,  in  the  year 
296-295  B.  C.  Now  it  has  been  shown  that  Alexandrine  coins  continued 
to  appear  until  about  the  time  of  Demetrius’  final  fall  in  286-285  B.  C.  and 

1 Rouvier,  Rev.  des  fitudes  Gr.,  1899,  pp.  362  ff.  and  Rev.  Num.,  1909. 

2 Six,  loc.  cit.,  p.  192. 

3 Loc.  cit.,  Introd.  cxxx-cxxxi. 


18 


Tyrus  Rkdiviva 


the  acquisition  of  Tyre  by  Ptolemy.  Of  course,  to  Dr.  Rouvier  the  date 
296-5  B.  C.  seemed  significant  as  he  had  adopted  Droysen’s  theory  (followed 
by  Niese  II,  125)  that  Seleucus  I actually  acquired  Tyre  in  295  B.  C.  But 
the  recent  writers,  Theodore  Reinach1  and  Tarn,2  have  shown  this  theory 
to  be  ill-founded  and  have  proved  that  Demetrius  held  both  Sidon  and  Tyre 
until  his  final  fall.  Hence  the  date  of  296-5  for  the  cessation  of  the  Tyrian 
didrachms  means  little.  It  is  not  necessary,  however,  to  press  this  point 
as  a definite  reason  for  rejecting  Rouvier ’s  dating.  A coinage  of  local 
types  might  well  cease  at  any  time  without  affecting  the  continued  is- 
sue of  pieces  belonging  to  the  “coinage  of  the  realm.”  But  the  objection 
which  cannot  be  emphasized  too  strongly  against  Rouvier’s  theory  is  the  fact 
that,  by  adopting  it,  we  must  admit  a coinage  of  local  types  some  eight  years 
preceding  the  appearance  of  an  Alexandrine  coinage  — and  this  admission 
seems  fatal. 

According  to  M.  Babelon’s  theory,3  the  dates  on  our  Tyrian  didrachms 
should  be  referred  to  the  Seleucid  era  taking  its  inception  in  312  B.  C. 
By  this  the  first  year  (23)  would  fall  in  289-8  B.  C.,  and  the  last  (37)  in 
275-4  B.  C.  The  objections  to  M.  Babelon’s  theory  are  both  numerous  and 
vital,  although  Mr.  Hill  in  his  introduction  to  the  British  Museum  Catalogue, 
pp.  cxxx-cxxxi,  seems  inclined  to  accept  it.  In  the  first  place  it  is  exceed- 
ingly doubtful,  and  certainly  it  has  not  been  proved,  that  the  Seleucid  era 
was  ever  used  in  Southern  Phoenicia  before  the  final  conquest  by  Antiochus 
III  in  200  B.  C.  Had  this  been  done,  it  could  only  have  been  introduced  by 
Seleucus  I,  and  it  is  very  doubtful  if  Seleucus  ever  held  any  portion  of  this 
district.  It  is  absurd  to  believe  that  this  era  could  ever  have  been  intro- 
duced by  either  Demetrius  or  Ptolemy.  In  his  Perses  A chemenides,  Introd. 
p.  cxci,  M.  Babelon  makes  the  entirely  unsupported  statement  that  Seleucus 
secured  Tyre  in  287  B.  C.,  while  later  in  his  Trciite,  p.  627,  he  says  that  Tyre 
fell  to  Seleucus  en  294  (,u  plus  tot  — this,  probably  to  support  his  new  theory 
as  to  the  introduction  of  the  series  of  dated  Tyrian  didrachms.  Niese 
bases  his  assumption  of  Seleucus’  presence  in  Phoenicia  solely  upon  the  attri- 
bution of  certain  coins  to  Accho,4  Ascalon,5  and  Sidon,6  all  of  which  attribu- 
tions are  demonstrably  erroneous.7 

1 Theodore  Reinach,  Necrop.  roy.  a Sidon,  p.  383. 

2 Tarn,  Antigomis  Gonatas,  p.  105;  see  also  n.  33. 

3 Les  Perses  Achemenides,  Introd.,  p.  cxci  and  Traite  II,  2,  p.  627-8. 

4 Babelon,  Rois  de  Syrie,  xxxv  ff. 

5 Muller,  Numism.  d’ Alexandre  le  Gr.,  p.  309. 

r 6 Niese  II,  p.  125,  note  8,  refers  to  Babelon,  loc.  cit.,  xxxvii,  who  there  assigns  a coin  to  Sidon  on  strength 
of  a certain  monogram  in  a wreath.  This  coin  is  certainly  of  Babylon  ; the  monogram  is  identical 
with  certain  ones  on  coins  which  Imhoof-Blumer  has  long  ago  shown  must  be  assigned  to  that  city. 

7 With  regard  to  the  Accho  coins  of  Seleucus,  Hill,  Brit.  Mus.  Cat.  Palestine,  Introd.  p.  lxxviii, 
n.  3,  has  already  expressed  his  doubts.  Muller’s  attribution  of  other  coins  of  Seleucus  to  Ascalon  are 


Tyrus  Rediviva 


19 


Now  assuming  for  the  sake  of  argument  that  Seleucus  at  some  period 
between  300  and  280  B.  C.  might  have  held  Phoenicia,  and  that  therefore 
the  reckoning  of  years  by  the  Seleucid  era  might  conceivably  have  been 
introduced  at  this  early  date  in  Tyre,  where  would  this  assumption  lead  us? 
Directly  onto  the  horns  of  a still  more  serious  dilemma.  For  then  we  must 
suppose  not  only  that  Seleucus  did  not  strike  any  of  his  own  coins  in  Tyre,1 
but  that  the  earliest  of  the  Tyrian  didrachms  are  then  the  only  representa- 
tives of  any  coinage  of  his  in  this  great  emporium  ! Worse  than  this  is  the 
fact  that  a large  portion  of  them  would  then  have  been  struck  under  the 
succeeding  Ptolemaic  suzerainty  (the  last  year  37  = 275-4  B.  C.,  a date 
long  after  the  final  Lagid  acquisition  of  the  city).  This  hypothesis  is 
utterly  untenable.  The  Ptolemies,  after  the  adoption  by  Soter  in  the  year 
305  B.  C.  of  the  so-called  Phoenician  weight-system  and  the  eagle  types, 
made  it  their  constant  policy  to  introduce  this  coinage  wherever  and  when- 
ever they  chanced  to  secure  a new  province.  Throughout  their  existence, 
they  were  forever  combating  the  widely  spread  Attic  weight-system,  and 
endeavoring  to  substitute  their  own  for  it  in  their  various  conquests  on  the 
coasts  of  Thrace,  Asia  Minor,  Cyprus,  and  Phoenicia.  In  all  these  districts 
they  tolerated  no  other  coinage  system  than  their  own.  For  the  mint  of 
Tyre,  there  have  come  down  to  us  a prolific  series  of  coins  of  the  accepted 
Lagid  type  and  weight  (Svoronos,  Nos.  626-704).  Dr.  Rouvier  has  clearly 
seen  2 that  this  great  number  of  specimens  and  varieties  must  fill  the  entire 
extent  of  Soter’s  and  Philadelphus’  reign  in  that  city.  It  is  unthinkable, 
and  would  be  a unique  instance  in  the  entire  Ptolemaic  numismatic  history 8 
if  they  had,  even  for  an  instant,  tolerated  a local  issue  of  Tyre  (the  capital 
and  commercial  center  of  their  Phoenician  dominions)  based  on  the 
Attic  weight-system  and  running  alongside  of  their  own  royal  issues  which 
were  based  on  the  Phoenician  weight-system.  It  is  inevitable  that  the 
mere  introduction  of  a coinage  based  on  the  Egypto-Phoenician  weight 
system  would  automatically  bring  about  an  immediate  cessation  of  coins 
struck  on  the  Attic  weight-system. 

As  a final  objection  to  the  Seleucid  era,  it  should  be  pointed  out  that 

equally  unfounded,  being  based  upon  his  mistaken  conception  that  the  magistrate’s  letters  in  the 
field  represent  the  initials  of  the  city’s  name.  Droysen,  p.  258,  while  stating  his  belief  that  Seleucus 
secured  Phoenicia,  frankly  admits  (p.  258,  note  2)  that  Plutarch  does  not  say  this,  and  that  Pausanias 
I.  6-8,  flatly  contradicts  it.  He  merely  infers  it,  citing  support  for  his  contention  only  as  far  as  Coele- 
Syria  (including  Judaea)  is  concerned  — but  this  does  not  presuppose,  by  any  means,  that  Phoenicia 
was  included. 

1 At  least,  none  have  come  down  to  us. 

2 Rev.  Num.,  1909,  pp.  340  ff. 

3 The  Alexandrine  tetradrachms,  supposed  by  Svoronos  to  have  been  issued  during  Ptolemaic  rule 
in  that  city,  have  been  shown  by  the  writer  to  have  been  far  earlier.  The  same  is  true  of  the  Sidonian 
Alexanders  which  Rouvier  (Rev.  Num.,  1909,  p.  341)  has  proved  to  be  much  earlier  also. 


20 


Tytcus  Rediviva 


its  adoption  for  the  dates  23-37  on  our  didrachms  would  cause  a serious 
discrepancy  in  styles  and  fabric.  Whereas,  with  but  one  or  two  exceptions 
(here  Plate  III,  Nos.  9,  10),  the  coins  which  Ptolemy  II  struck  at  Tyre  are  of 
hue  style  and  neat  manufacture,  our  Tyrian  didrachms  are  quite  the  oppo- 
site. To  suppose  that  their  dies  could  have  been  cut  by  the  same  workmen, 
or  the  coins  themselves  struck  in  the  same  mint  and  at  the  same  time  as 
the  coins  illustrated  by  Svoronos,  Plate  XIX,  Nos.  1-28,  is  manifestly  absurd. 
There  is  absolutely  nothing  in  common  between  the  two  series,  a fact  that 
would  long  ago  have  been  recognized  by  the  competent  numismatists  dealing 
with  this  subject,  were  it  not  that  they  were  apparently  blinded  by  their 
own  preconceived  theories. 

Svoronos’  theory  1 of  the  use  of  the  so-called  era  of  Ptolemy  I,  311-310 
B.  C.,  for  the  dating  of  the  Tyrian  didrachms  possesses  the  same  serious 
objections  as  the  Seleucid  era,  without  presupposing  a conquest  of  Southern 
Phoenicia  by  Seleucus  I and  the  improbable  introduction  at  this  early 
date  of  his  era.  According  to  Svoronos’  dating  the  year  23  would  fall  in 
288-7  B.  C.,  the  year  37  in  275-4  B.  C.,  thus  bringing  about  the  same 
insurmountable  difficulty  of  a parallel  issue  under  Ptolemy  II  of  Attic 
didrachms  and  Phoenician  tetradrachms,  as  well  as  an  impossible  mixture 
of  styles  and  fabric.  In  fact,  a manifest  absurdity  is  here  presupposed, 
namely,  that  it  was  under  Ptolemy  himself  that  an  issue  of  Attic  weight  was 
commenced  in  the  royal  mint  of  Tyre ! 

Still  more  impossible  is  R.  Dussaud’s  theory,2  which  has  already  been 
rejected  by  both  Dr.  Rouvier  and  Mr.  Hill.3  This  theory  would  bring 
our  didrachms  down  to  the  period  251-0  to  237  6 B.  C.  — a conclusion  that 
is  sufficiently  refuted  by  the  far  earlier  style  of  the  coins  themselves. 

Thus  we  must  face  the  fact  that  every  one  of  the  four  eras  definitely 
proposed  and  accepted  by  various  students  has  one  or  more  serious  objec- 
tions. There  is  another  solution  possible,  and  one  which  has  the  great 
advantage  of  avoiding  all  of  the  apparently  fatal  difficulties  urged  against 
the  adoption  of  any  one  of  the  four  eras  discussed  above.  For  we  have  at, 
our  disposal  yet  a fifth  era,  whose  use  is  vouched  for  by  abundant  literary 
evidence.4  It  was  actually  proposed,  only  to  be  rejected,  by  Dr.  Rouvier 
himself,  who  is5  seemingly  obsessed  by  his  discovery  of  the  use  of  the 
Alexander  era  at  Sidon.  The  era  by  which  our  Tyrian  didrachms  must  be 
dated  is  that  of  the  death  of  Alexander  the  Great.  This  particular  era  is 

1 Loc.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  113  ff. 

2 Rev.  Num.,  1908,  p.  453. 

3 Brit.  Mus.  Cat.,  Introd.,  p.  cxxx ; Rev.  Num.,  1909. 

4 Censorinus,  De  die  Natali,  cxxi,  9,  Ptolemy,  Almagest,  passim. 

6 Rev.  des  Etudes  Gr.,  1899. 


Tyrus  Rediviva 


*21 


also  known  as  that  of  Philip  Arrhidseus.  Its  point  of  departure  was  gen- 
erally considered  to  have  been  the  12th  of  Nov.,  324  B.  C. 

In  support  of  our  proposal  to  adopt  this  era,  let  us  look  carefully  at  the 
facts  available.  In  the  first  place,  considerations  of  style  and  fabric  would 
seem  to  show  that  groups  A,  B,  and  C form  a continuous  series  of  coins  with- 
out the  gap  admitted  by  Rouvier,1  who  assigns  A and  B to  332-325  B.  C., 
but  C to  311-0  to  296-5  B.  C.  Now  the  entire  series  could  not  well  have 
commenced  before  there  actually  existed  a mint  at  Tyre.  This  we  know  was 
not  until  after  321-320  B.  C.  (see  above,  p.  1),  possibly  even  later,  for  by 
their  style  the  undated  bronze  coins  struck  at  Ake  for  Tyre  would  seem  to  . 
have  come  after  the  one  bearing  the  date  26  (321-320  B.  C.).  Further, 
from  the  significant  evidence  of  finds,  we  now  know  that  the  Tyrian  Alexan- 
drine coins  could  not  have  been  struck  much,  if  any,  earlier  than  about 
307-306  B.  C.  (see  above,  p.  11).  If  then  — as  on  the  very  face  of  it  seems 
exceedingly  plausible  — we  should  conclude  that  the  series  of  Tyrian 
didrachms  of  Attic  weight  had  not  made  its  appearance  until  the  actual 
commencement  of  the  Alexandrine  issues  at  Tyre,  in  and  around  the  year 
307  B.  C.,  we  might  draw  up  the  following  scheme  of  their  issue : 

In  the  year  307  B.  C.  appeared  ||2 

“ “ “ 306  B.  C. 

“ “ “ 305  B.  C. 

“ “ “ 304  B.  C. 

“ “ “ 303  B.  C. 

“ “ “ 302  B.  C. 

“ “ “ 301  B.  C. 

and  so  forth,  to 

Year  287  B.  C.2 

The  striking  fact  of  this  scheme  is  at  once  apparent.  The  Tyrian 
didrachms  exactly  cover  what  we  have  seen  could  only  have  been  the  period 
during  which  staters  and  tetradrachms  bearing  Alexander’s  types  ap- 
peared at  Tyre.  In  other  words,  the  didrachms  of  Attic  weight  commence 
and  also  end  with  the  only  issue  of  staters  and  tetradrachms  of  Attic  weight 
which  are  attributable  to  our  mint  at  this  time.  The  adoption  of  the  era 
for  the  dating  of  group  C of  these  didrachms  takes  place  in  301  B.  C.  — the 
date  of  Antigonus’  death  and  the  accession  of  Demetrius.  It  was  also  at 
about  this  very  time  that  there  occurs  a change  in  the  inscription  of  the 
tetradrachms,  most  plausibly  associated  with  the  accession  of  Demetrius 

1 He,  himself,  says  that  this  gap  is  impossible  to.  explain. 

2 As  the  era  here  proposed  commenced  in  November,  each  year  ran  from  November  to  November. 
Hence,  in  our  reckoning  that  year  only  which  contained  the  greater  number  of  the  months  is  given. 


|||2 

m 

1 2ft  and 
||ft 

|||ft 

no 


ft 


nO 


T vrus  Rediviva 


22 

(see  above,  p.  11).  Historians  have  surmised 1 from  their  decrees  and  actions 
that  Antigonus  and  his  son  Demetrius  reckoned  themselves  as  the  direct 
successors  to  Alexander  himself.  The  final  adoption  on  Tyrian  coins  of  an 
era  dating  from  Alexander’s  death  (that  is,  the  commencement  of  the  Antig- 
onid  dynasty)  is  therefore  easily  explainable.  This  era,  together  with  the 
Attic  weight-system  of  the  coins  themselves,  comes  to  an  end  when  De- 
metrius’ Phoenician  admiral,  goes  over  with  his  fleets  to  Ptolemy.  The 
acquisition  of  Sidon  and  Tyre  by  the  latter  is,  of  course,  the  immediate  con- 
sequence of  this  defection.  The  date  for  this  event  has  already  been  con- 
jectured by  Tarn  2 to  have  been  287  or  286  B.  C.  This  date  is  largely  con- 
firmed by  our  latest  didrachm  which  is  dated  37,  or  between  Nov.  288 
and  Nov.  287.  In  this  year,  or  the  following,  Ptolemy  secured  Tyre,  and 
commenced  the  issue  (Plate  III,  9,  10)  of  his  tetradrachms  of  Egypt  o- 
Phoenician  weights.  One  of  the  outstanding  features  of  the  new  arrange- 
ment is  that  by  it  we  no  longer  have  an  anomalous  mixture  of  styles  and 
fabric.  In  this  regard  our  didrachms  are  the  exact  counterpart  of  the 
Tyrian  Alexanders.  We  find  the  same  increasingly  poor  workmanship, 
the  same  faulty  striking  and  frequent  cracking  of  the  dies,  the  same  hard, 
dry  technique  of  the  cutting.  We  also  have  for  the  two  series  the  same 
interchange  of  die  positions,  now  f,  now  |,3  with  once  in  a while  eccentric 
positions.  On  the  other  hand,  the  die  positions  of  the  succeeding  Ptolemaic 
issues  is  invariably  t 4. 

As  a result  of  the  foregoing  study,  does  it  not  now  seem  fairly  certain 
that  the  Tyrian  mint  was  not  in  active  operation  between  the  years  332  and 
307  B.  C.  ? By  this  time,  however,  the  city  itself  had  greatly  recovered  from 
the  terrible  blow  dealt,  it  by  Alexander.  Its  fortifications  had  been  re- 
peatedly strengthened  by  both  Ptolemy  and  Antigonus,  so  that  Tyre  had 
now  become  the  strongest  place  on  the  entire  Phoenician  coast.  It  was 
but  natural  that  Antigonus  should  have  come  to  recognize  in  it  a most 
valuable  bulwark  against  Lagid  aggression,  as  well  as  a most  convenient 
base  for  his  own  contemplated  operations  against  the  kingdom  on  the 
Nile.  For  it  is  interesting  to  observe  that  both  the  evidence  of  finds  and 
the  dates  borne  by  some  of  the  coins  themselves  would  seem  to  point  to  the 
year  307-306  B.  C.  as  the  date  at  which  the  Tyrian  mint  was  re-opened. 
This  fact  may  indeed  be  significant.  For  was  it  not  in  307  B.  C.  that  Antig- 
onus commenced  his  plans  for  the  attack  upon  Egypt?  Towards  the  end 


1 Among  others,  Haussoulier,  Etudes  sur  Vhistoire  de  Milet  et  du  Didymeion,  p.  18. 

2 Loc.  cit.,  p.  104  ff.  and  notes. 

3 This  position  for  the  Tyrian  didrachms,  see  B.  M.  C.  Phoenicia,  no.  42. 

4 At  least  is  this  true  of  the  numerous  specimens  in  American  collections  which  have  been  inspected 
by  the  writer. 


Tyrus  Rediviva 


23 


of  that  year  orders  had  been  sent  to  Demetrius  in  Greece  to  join  his  father 
in  Syria.  In  the  early  spring  of  306  he  arrived  with  his  fleet,  defeated 
Ptolemy  in  the  great  sea  fight  off  Salamis,  and  secured  Cyprus  as  the  first 
step  in  the  plan.  The  remainder  of  summer  was  taken  up  in  completing 
preparations,  and  with  the  autumn  the  advance  against  Egypt  by  sea  and 
land  was  begun.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  ultimate  outcome  of  the 
expedition,  the  fact  remains  that,  the  great  fortress  of  Tyre  was  the  most 
obvious  base  for  any  contemplated  operations  against  Ptolemy,  as  it  was 
the  most  logical  center  of  defense  in  case  of  disaster. 

In  Tyre,  then,  Antigonus  probably  concentrated  all  necessary  supplies. 
As  a strategic  and  commercial  center  of  such  vast  importance,  small  wonder 
that  he  should  also  have  re-established  here  an  active  mint  to  meet  the 
pressing  needs  of  both  war  and  trade.  The  neighboring  mints  of  Sidon  and 
Ake  were  either  actually  abolished  or  merely  quickly  eclipsed.  Apparently, 
to  bind  still  further  the  new  Tyre  to  his  interests,  Antigonus  also  granted 
the  city  the  coveted  privilege  of  striking  a series  of  smaller  denominations 
bearing  purely  local  types,  reminiscent  of  the  city’s  former  greatness  and 
symbolic  of  her  present  revival.  Both  series  were  continued  without  in- 
terruption until  the  city  finally  fell  to  Ptolemy  about  286-285  B.  C.  The 
latter,  naturally,  immediately  abolished  all  issues  based  on  the  Attic  weight 
system  and  substituted  a coinage  conforming  in  both  types  and  weight 
with  that  of  the  remainder  of  his  Empire. 


Tyrus  Rediviva 


Plate  I 


SERIES  I 


Tyrus  Rediviva 


Plate  II 


SERIES  II 


Tyrus  Rediviva 


Plate  11! 


SERIES  III.  1—7 


//< 

/ 


GETTY  CENTER  LIBRARY  MAIN 

CJ  599  T19  N97  1919  BKS 

c-  1 Newell,  Edward  Theod 

TNe  Alexandrine  coinage  of  Sinope  / 


3 3125  00251  4574 


